Rugby League clubs told to look at new talent playing

[The Future is League]

Basketball

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/21266248/rugby-league-basketball-players-salford/

[Damien]

Wigan for a number of years have already been going into schools in Manchester and identifying athletic talent from other sports.

[JM2010]

Most of the best athletes choose football and are taken into academies at a young age but are then released whilst still in their teens.

How could we attract some of these into RL?

 

[ELBOWSEYE]

22 minutes ago, JM2010 said:

Most of the best athletes choose football and are taken into academies at a young age but are then released whilst still in their teens.

How could we attract some of these into RL?

 

Not on the pitiful wages SL clubs pay their youngsters. 

[gingerjon]

25 minutes ago, JM2010 said:

Most of the best athletes choose football and are taken into academies at a young age but are then released whilst still in their teens.

How could we attract some of these into RL?

 

Why would they come to RL when they can make better money playing for Sporting Bromsgrove or countless other teams across the country?

[The 4 of Us]

Isn’t this supposed to have been the whole approach for the last 30 years or more.

I can’t believe the sport has to be told.

If London Broncos and others were given a proper supportive pathway, RL would have a far bigger pool of talent. 
 

I remember back in 1985 there was a very good Peckham Pumas team that are evidence of wgat could be achieved with a little effort. 
 

I don’t doubt the sterling efforts of those volunteers continuing to plug away in areas away for the “heartlands” but they could do so much more with a little bit of organisation from those at the top.

[JM2010]

8 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Why would they come to RL when they can make better money playing for Sporting Bromsgrove or countless other teams across the country?

Yeah that's the issue. They could play semi pro and work and be on 3/4 times the money.

Hopefully IMG can help bring more money into the game.

 

[Whippet13]

The vast majority of talented youngsters who play sport don't get anywhere near a football academy and not every one of them is focused on money, if they did no sport outside of football would exist in the UK .

There are a hundred ways RL could attract new talent at all levels other than just offering wages, and we have ad hoc scattergun examples of it all over the place - but it needs proper structure and some sensible funding.

[Futtocks]

I don't know how much active targeting there is in the women's game, but it seems to be attracting athletes from all sorts of other sports.

[Oxford]

1 hour ago, The 4 of Us said:

I can’t believe the sport has to be told.

It doesn't !

[gingerjon]

2 hours ago, Whippet13 said:

The vast majority of talented youngsters who play sport don't get anywhere near a football academy and not every one of them is focused on money, if they did no sport outside of football would exist in the UK .

There are a hundred ways RL could attract new talent at all levels other than just offering wages, and we have ad hoc scattergun examples of it all over the place - but it needs proper structure and some sensible funding.

Yes, I was thinking of it from the perspective of the top tiers, that's fair.

[Madrileño]

4 hours ago, The 4 of Us said:

 

I remember back in 1985 there was a very good Peckham Pumas team that are evidence of wgat could be achieved with a little effort. 
 

Almost 40 years ago?

When the entire sport was part time, and professionalism didn't exist?

I'm not sure how this is relevant to athletes from other sports transitioning into the League professional pathway, but please elaborate on the Peckham Pumas. Who were they? What did they do? Why are they not in Super League today? Did they just give up??

[Oxford]

6 hours ago, Madrileño said:

Almost 40 years ago?

When the entire sport was part time, and professionalism didn't exist?

I'm not sure that professionalism didn't exist in 1985 though the bulk were certainly part time.

[The Future is League]

20 hours ago, JM2010 said:

Most of the best athletes choose football and are taken into academies at a young age but are then released whilst still in their teens.

How could we attract some of these into RL?

 

Matty Smith and Denis Betts came to Rugby League after being involved in football as juniors at Everton and Manchester United. They are out there we just need to make the game more attractive to them, as some get very dissolutioned with football when they are cast aside at a young age as they think they are the next Ronaldo or Messi and they are not and still want to get involved in some sort of team sport.

[The Future is League]

19 hours ago, The 4 of Us said:

Isn’t this supposed to have been the whole approach for the last 30 years or more.

I can’t believe the sport has to be told.

If London Broncos and others were given a proper supportive pathway, RL would have a far bigger pool of talent. 
 

I remember back in 1985 there was a very good Peckham Pumas team that are evidence of wgat could be achieved with a little effort. 
 

I don’t doubt the sterling efforts of those volunteers continuing to plug away in areas away for the “heartlands” but they could do so much more with a little bit of organisation from those at the top.

Also a more diverse playing base

[Oxford]

RL clubs do a great job with limited resources.

There are some inconsistencies that make some clubs look  better than others and make them better off than others which could do with being addressed but certainly never will be.

It's a complete myth that could do with debunking that all the best athletes are hoovered up by football. Plenty of top athletes just aren't suitable for or good at soccer. And it's worth noting that football wasteage level is huge.

It is interesting that our athletes go to the NRL and compared with when they go to k&c there is barely a ripple generally. Yet the sum total of internationals we have means they disappear more thoroughly for those fans without PPV TV.

 

 

 

[DACS]

Agree with Oxford. For all the fact that most kids probably dream of playing football, most of the talented ones will have been discarded by the pro scene well before they reach 16. I went to school with a number of lads who went to play for Leeds City boys team, which was touted as the route to play for Leeds Utd. Not one of them turned pro and they'd been effectively dropped from the system by age 14.  The only lads that did turn pro from my time were two brothers who were both tiny, and neither played above old third division level.

Not to mention there are a lot of kids with completely the wrong build for football. 

The point is that a lot of kids wouldn't even think of playing RL who could be great at it. Its up to the game to work out a way of identifying them and getting them interested. Good luck with the current generation of kids obsessed with all things digital though....

[Leonard]

On 04/02/2023 at 10:51, JM2010 said:

Yeah that's the issue. They could play semi pro and work and be on 3/4 times the money.

Hopefully IMG can help bring more money into the game.

 

Or remove the cap.

 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

On 04/02/2023 at 10:43, The 4 of Us said:

Isn’t this supposed to have been the whole approach for the last 30 years or more.

I can’t believe the sport has to be told.

If London Broncos and others were given a proper supportive pathway, RL would have a far bigger pool of talent. 
 

I remember back in 1985 there was a very good Peckham Pumas team that are evidence of wgat could be achieved with a little effort. 
 

I don’t doubt the sterling efforts of those volunteers continuing to plug away in areas away for the “heartlands” but they could do so much more with a little bit of organisation from those at the top.

Yes, this is primarily a resources issue.

When we had the Lewis-negotiated boom in Sport England funding in the early 2000's, supporting development officers nationally, we saw an increase in participation. When this was cut in 2011 and again 2015 because we apparently didn't hit their participation growth targets (although the data was questionable) we went backwards in resource numbers, and inevitably outcomes. 

This is why growing revenues is so important, over-and-above player wage growth (which we also need). £2m-£3m extra per year into centrally-funded RFL development officer programmes, over and above club and club charitable foundation investmwent, would be huge. The money can be targeted to where the talent pools are, rather than where the current elite clubs are, which is not necessarily the same thing. 

 

 

 

[whatmichaelsays]

On 04/02/2023 at 11:11, Whippet13 said:

The vast majority of talented youngsters who play sport don't get anywhere near a football academy and not every one of them is focused on money, if they did no sport outside of football would exist in the UK .

In fairness, we're not talking about RL being able to compete with youth football salaries. 

We're talking about RL not even competing with call centre salaries. 

[gingerjon]

23 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Yes, this is primarily a resources issue.

When we had the Lewis-negotiated boom in Sport England funding in the early 2000's, supporting development officers nationally, we saw an increase in participation. When this was cut in 2011 and again 2015 because we apparently didn't hit their participation growth targets (although the data was questionable) we went backwards in resource numbers, and inevitably outcomes. 

This is why growing revenues is so important, over-and-above player wage growth (which we also need). £2m-£3m extra per year into centrally-funded RFL development officer programmes, over and above club and club charitable foundation investmwent, would be huge. The money can be targeted to where the talent pools are, rather than where the current elite clubs are, which is not necessarily the same thing. 

 

 

 

The Sport England data thing wasn't questionable -certainly not in a conspiracy theory way. All sports were marking their own homework and pretty much all saw numbers decrease once a more independent and robust way of measuring numbers came in.

Plus, for better or worse, Sport England changed a lot of how it funds all sports with regards to participation which affected us pretty poorly as well.

Broadly though, you are completely right, the loss of the development officer programme has been devastating for the game.

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

10 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

The Sport England data thing wasn't questionable -certainly not in a conspiracy theory way. All sports were marking their own homework and pretty much all saw numbers decrease once a more independent and robust way of measuring numbers came in.

Plus, for better or worse, Sport England changed a lot of how it funds all sports with regards to participation which affected us pretty poorly as well.

Broadly though, you are completely right, the loss of the development officer programme has been devastating for the game.

Yes, I'll happily re-phrase. I was doing some stuff around the London club at the time so knew some of the RFL commercial crew, it was clear on the ground that participation had gone up markedly, but the data showed it wasn't. It wouldn't surprise me at all if that was because the base point was inflated by misguided people in the RFL. But I would still argue that basing your decision-making on flawed data, regardless of fault, is still poor decision-making: The underlying reality was Sport England investment enabled us to increase participation, which is the whole purpose of Sport England, and to then see it removed despite that was mind-numbing. 

[Oxford]

35 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Sport England changed a lot of how it funds all sports with regards to participation which affected us pretty poorly as well.

So the criteria finds you wanting in participation terms and takes away money so you can't encourage participation.

That just about sums up funding in the UK and not just in sport.

47 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

We're talking about RL not even competing with call centre salaries. 

However congenial Mumbai might be at this time of the year I think the comparison leaves a bit to be desired.

[gingerjon]

5 minutes ago, Oxford said:

So the criteria finds you wanting in participation terms and takes away money so you can't encourage participation.

No, I mean their criteria for funding participation changed. From memory, it moved from just saying, "Heh, X number of people playing rugby league is great" to "Heh, we have limited money and we're now being judged on a whole range of things so maybe we can't just give money to the RFL so they can then tell us how many people in Woking are now playing rugby league once a week completely unlinked to any other data given that we are using taxpayers' money and not all taxpayers think playing rugby league in Woking is a priority".

And, yes, this did change for every sport.

[Oxford]

9 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

that we are using taxpayers' money and not all taxpayers think playing rugby league in Woking is a priority".

This argument that it's tax payers money is at the root of all the nonsense we're facing right now never mind in sport.

And what these fictitious taxpayers think is a priority is hard to fathom when everything's falling apart. And the less said about Woking the better.

In terms of

12 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

And, yes, this did change for every sport.

Did you mean the criterai gj?

If so it still wouldn't mean the effects are the same.