Joined: Jun 01 2007 Posts: 12642 Location: Leicestershire.
SmokeyTA wrote:you see, thats really all i would be looking for, i dont mind overseas players, i think Ali Lauitiiti is the most exciting player i have watched in 10 years, i love the way he plays, and i dont think there is a british player like him (thats not to say he is the best or anything, i just like his all or nothing, try or turnover approach to offloading) but i think sometimes clubs get sidetracked into the short term gains of overseas players than the long term gains of getting a youth developments system in place and giving a shot to youngsters.
I dont really blame anyone, i think the law makes it nearly impossible for the RFL to do anything, and clubs are self interested, some of the excuses for something that doesnt really need excusing, annoy me, there is no defence what HKR have done, they have looked after themselves ahead of the game, so have wakefield and many other clubs for a a few years, it doesnt need excusing, its just how it is,
which is why i think we need to make it difficult, we cant ban overseas players as we have seen, at the first sign of trouble the system collapses, so we need to make a situation where clubs can bring in all the foreigners they want, but they will be poop, and they will have a poop team.
The only way to avoid this situation in the future, is to cut the cap in half, take all youth developed by that club of the SC, it is a silly counterproductive action, have players signed from NL1 and developing nations count half, british players from SL count 3/4s and overseas imports count full..
added to this we should rejigg the TV payment so 50% goes directly to the club, 25% is ringfenced for youth development and the other 25% goes into a pot with all the other clubs, who will earn 2% back for every player they have developed, regardless of where they play now, who gets an international cap for a british or european (id include other northern hemisphere nations too, i.e west indies, Lebanon, USA etc) nation during that season
We agree I think your system is a tad overcomplicated and clubs would need a while to prepare for it, but have no issues with it at all in principle. I think simply ring-fencing cash could be done sooner and there'd be less danger of a player challenging it due to his being disadvantaged by where he trained. But that is just quibbling.
Joined: Aug 13 2003 Posts: 20966 Location: The Shaky Isles
Roy Haggerty wrote:Just as a matter of interest, why else should any sport, or company, expand, if it's not for expansion's sake ? Expansion in sport means more fans, more money, more players, more coverage, more profile. That's the same for any sport, not just RL. It's why RU encourages tiddly countries to play in their world cup and sets up S14 sides in Ausssie Rules and RL territory, and why soccer keeps trying to break the USA while US Football tries to break Europe, and why Formula 1 offers different countries the chance to franchise a GP etc etc etc. All sports try to expand, and they all do so for expansion's sake. Wouldn't it be bizarre not to want to expand ? Or, even more oddly, to want to expand not for the sake of expansion but for the sake of not expanding ? I'm confused. Why else should we want to expand ? Or any sport ? If not for expansion's sake ?
would you care to expand on that
dally messenger wrote:was watching an nfl doco. on one of their teams and they used the term bomb to describe those long high passes from quaterback to running back and i think gibson took that idea, realized you cant throw the ball forward in RL and adapted it to a "bomb" kick we have
eels fan wrote:You poor poor obsessed fat ex vichyballin potato thieving stoaway.
vastman wrote:Even you must face the fact that there are only ever a limited number of gifted juniors and the best (appear best at that age) will go to the club with the biggest cheque book and most prestige. It's not rocket science it's how it's always been. Thankfully some big names never make it whilst others written off by the bigger clubs like Ellis thrive which evens it up a bit.
Leeds will always produce more young players because they have the cash to take the risk. You can kid yourself all you like but those of us who know the game know Leeds speculate on youngsters because they can.
Trinity had a fantastic crop of youngsters in early 2000 including Ellis, Mason, Snitch, Feather, Brough and Westwood. We have not achieved that since despite increased spending. The reason is simple we can get what we can afford, do the best we can with them and then hope that occasionally we strike it rich like Cas have of late. Leeds can chuck money at it each year and know it will work out.
Wakefield could go mental trying to sign youngsters but it would make little difference IMHO as the best would still go to the champion team and all we would be doing is paying second tier prospects more than they are worth.
Try and be realistic for once.
all this would be fine and dandy, if we were playing in america, where all the best players come through one system, and we see they are the best and we can pick them up and make them pros,
but we dont,
we live in a country where we have 4 different pools for players, overseas, other clubs, youth academies and the amateur game, all the players with sufficient natural ability arent picked up from the amateur game, nor from academy rugby, there are a few players in the NLs who could make it,
we havent exhausted these other areas yet, it isnt a matter of there not being sufficient quality out there, its were not going out and finding it,
there is no reason why Wakefield couldnt have picked up Ryan Hall at 18 still playing amateur rugby, yes leeds eventually got him, but where Cas and Wakefield between 15-18, if you want to argue you are doing all you can under the circumstances, explain how he wasnt picked up?
Similarly Simon Worrall came from RU, is he the only young RU player who would like and survive in RL in the whole of britain? why not go there and pick up some youngsters,
Kallum Watkins came from Manchester, if Leeds can pick up a young star from 60 miles away why can't everyone else?
your argument would only stand, if the only reason Leeds had better youth development was because they had a bigger chequebook, its not, its because they have top quality coaching and top quality scouting, this is what we need all clubs to have, and we need them to use it as their fallback instead of players from overseas
for some reason you seem think Leeds speculating on a young british player is a negative, yet Wakefield going out and getting say Frank Winterstein is a good thing, its evidence of quality scouting, why the hell arent these scouts over here, looking at the NLs, the amateur game, the academy games?
stop making excuses, it just makes your club sound pathetic, they have made it SL and stayed there, thats an acheivement, now they need to more, and they can, yet you talk of them as if they are some wimp in the corner being bullied by the bigger boys, they arent, they got here on merit and stayed here on merit, now they need to compete on merit, they dont need you to make excuses for them, they are much better than that
//www.pngnrlbid.com
bUsTiNyAbALLs wrote:Do not converse with me you filthy minded deviant.
vastman wrote:My rage isn't impotent luv, I'm frothing at the mouth actually.
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 10445 Location: Bradford
SmokeyTA wrote:your argument would only stand, if the only reason Leeds had better youth development was because they had a bigger chequebook, its not, its because they have top quality coaching and top quality scouting
Post subject: Re: Saints, Champions of Junior development
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:30 pm
The Chair Maker
International Chairman
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 12738 Location: The heart of gods Country, Haydock
Bridger wrote:Wigan's is actually 16 out of 29.
The '25' man squad at Wigan includes the unused 22 and the cheesy 18 the fans.
So to be pedantic, the first 25 listed players contain 12 academy products.
These are not my statistics they are the RFL's as displayed in this week RL express.
There are strict definitions of which players go into the various categories.
These figures are correct, according to the RFL which is what matters when it comes to RFL rules.
af wrote:... which a big chequebook helps with, no?
only in the way that money makes everything easier, all clubs have the funds to do it, and to do it to the level leeds and others do, its just some choose to spend it on other things,
the reason leeds do well in this aspect is because they have employed dedicated, skilled, and high quality people, who arent paid massive amounts of money,
//www.pngnrlbid.com
bUsTiNyAbALLs wrote:Do not converse with me you filthy minded deviant.
vastman wrote:My rage isn't impotent luv, I'm frothing at the mouth actually.
SmokeyTA wrote:only in the way that money makes everything easier, all clubs have the funds to do it, and to do it to the level leeds and others do, its just some choose to spend it on other things,
the reason leeds do well in this aspect is because they have employed dedicated, skilled, and high quality people, who arent paid massive amounts of money,
just to add to this point, if a club would prefer to spend some money on an ageing NRL who may be a good squad player for a couple of seasons than a top notch scout who could locate players who could be with the club for the next 10 years, then isnt that down to their own short sightedness?
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 10445 Location: Bradford
RossRhino wrote:just to add to this point, if a club would prefer to spend some money on an ageing NRL who may be a good squad player for a couple of seasons than a top notch scout who could locate players who could be with the club for the next 10 years, then isnt that down to their own short sightedness?
If the first team squad isn't competitive, that club might not be a SL side in ten or even three years time.
A balance obviously has to be struck, but that will always be easier for clubs bankrolled by millionaires than it is for those that have to live by their own means.
af wrote:If the first team squad isn't competitive, that club might not be a SL side in ten or even three years time.
A balance obviously has to be struck, but that will always be easier for clubs bankrolled by millionaires than it is for those that have to live by their own means.
Leeds arent bankrolled by millionnaires, they do it, and they make a profit most years
they are a well run profitable business, they arent beholden to banks or sugar daddys
//www.pngnrlbid.com
bUsTiNyAbALLs wrote:Do not converse with me you filthy minded deviant.
vastman wrote:My rage isn't impotent luv, I'm frothing at the mouth actually.
Joined: Aug 13 2003 Posts: 20966 Location: The Shaky Isles
Some worried heartlands clubs idea of how to attract young local talent....
This is something that we are now starting to see down south....with sightings of recruitment scouts from "OOP NORF" at various local schools/age division club games....but it will never catch on down here
dally messenger wrote:was watching an nfl doco. on one of their teams and they used the term bomb to describe those long high passes from quaterback to running back and i think gibson took that idea, realized you cant throw the ball forward in RL and adapted it to a "bomb" kick we have
eels fan wrote:You poor poor obsessed fat ex vichyballin potato thieving stoaway.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
I think your system is a tad overcomplicated and clubs would need a while to prepare for it, but have no issues with it at all in principle. I think simply ring-fencing cash could be done sooner and there'd be less danger of a player challenging it due to his being disadvantaged by where he trained. But that is just quibbling.
