Utter rubbish and you know it. The reason there's no BARLA leagues outside the heartlands is that, for better or worse, most of the teams from their non-heartland leagues were absorbed into the RLC and the rest were left to fold with the league when it was left with an unviably small number of teams. With no non-heartland leagues then clearly non-heartland teams can't play in BARLA leagues, unless South London Storm fancy playing in the Pennine League? Although having said that Peterlee did play in the Yorkshire League for a few seasons but for whatever reason (travelling?) it was unsustainable. Either way nothing to do with rules and everything to do with simple pragmatics. In fact the BARLA National Youth League this last season had Gateshead, Celtic Crusaders and North London Stags, so 3 from 14 outside Lancashire/Yorkshire/Cumbria isn't bad

I feel a poll coming on

They could start by persuading the NCL and juniors to switch and then try to set up a much needed Yorkshire Conference League of the best teams from the Pennine League, Yorkshire League and Hull League. Then they could try to set up a new Yorkshire League better run. The Pennine and NWC Leagues are well run and would be best to get the existing leagues tgo switch if possible. The Cumberland, Barrow and Hull leagues are too small to risk splitting with rival leagues, but if the rest of the amateur game switched they would

This is what happens when typing late at night. You miss out key words in sentences :



"Their rules stifle clubs in the heartlands and [uthey [/uexclude clubs outside Lancs/Yorks/Cumbria"



I'm not suggesting they have rules excluding expansion areas. But their actions very clearly have that effect.



I can cite a couple of examples of them making life harder for expansion clubs without even having to look anything up :



1) BARLA very clearly attempting to sabotage the GB community Lions by refusing to co-operate with any attempts to include players from outside the heartlands, and by maintaining their own separate GB amateur side in order to screw over any attempt at a unified national performance structure.



2) BARLA issuing threats to sanction northern clubs who played in expansion competitions against clubs from new areas - effectively trying to strangle summer rugby, but with the additional consequence of making it more difficult for expansion competitions to gain critical mass. Like it or not, the spread of RL into new areas is only going to happen in summer. When BARLA oppose summer rugby, they are effectively making the spread of the game more difficult. It's not even like the RFL are saying everyone has to move to summer - they merely suggest clubs should have a choice. BARLA, on the other hand, have actively worked against clubs even having a choice.



Prior to the RLC, there was a London League for several years, playing in winter. The London League sought all sorts of assistance from BARLA, and got absolutely sod-all support in any way. The RFL, on the other hand, have been very supportive since they took over after the move. In fact, BARLA's attitude was so poor that the London League affiliated to the RFL even before the summer conference developed into the place it is now. All you need to know about BARLA's dedication to clubs outside the heartlands is enshrined in the fact that they have a three counties committee. They don't have any committee at all dealing with RL outside Lancs, Cumbria or Yorkshire. That's not just random - it's been that way for years. Where are the BARLA committees for encouraging the spread of the amateur game ? What have they actually done ? Not just in the last five years, but in the last twenty ?



But that's just one point. The great bulk of amateur RL is in the North (some would argue because nobody did anything about changing that until the RFL tried). Yet it is here that BARLA's influence is most malign, particularly through its anachronistic competition structure, and its bureaucratic restrictions over matters such as young player registrations. BARLA's day is done. They just refuse to accept it.

as Roy says, what are BARLA doing to expand the game in even the North? We've been crying out for a Merit League, 2009 we get one, in summer, under the auspices of the RFL administered system...



protect what you've got, in the most narrow minded form is the general attitude at BARLA. at a time when the systems, infrastructures, and for once - funding! - is in place to really make a difference...

What's the point? I think 99% of fans realise that BARLA are self-serving flat cap dinosaurs who have a completely negative effect on the game. They have been threatening to sue the RFL for years, FWIW, they won't go through with it because they don't have either the money or any sort of case.

Maybe the RFL should sue BARLA? Restricting the game or something like that?



I'm no expert on law as you can clearly see! But I'm sure they have just as much on BARLA as BARLA have on them.

No one is going to sue anyone. BARLA are a bunch of spineless flat cappers and they would be completely disregarded if they weren't stifling the game so much.

Pretty much sums it up for me

BARLA







The RFL







Taxi

In my experience BARLA's biggest failing is their inability to resolve issues in a timely manner. Everything rumbles slowly on from one (monthly) meeting to the next with nothing much happening whilst they hope the matter simply goes away..due to boredom or missing the boat.

In a world of email and econferences they simply move too slowly.

Just out of curiosity really, but if the RFL did take over the amateur game and appointed full time staff to run each comp what would it take, one full time person per league?



NCL, NWC, Penine, Yorkshire, Hull, Yorkshire Youth, RLC - seven staff or thereabouts?

There's more leagues than that and the bigger ones may need more staff, although I suppose volunteers can do a lot of it

My experience of BARLA meetings is lots of hot air and very little actually done.



Having said that the people involved are passionate about the game and really do care.



I suppose that what they need is "guidance" and if that comes from the RFL rather than the main commitee of BARLA then it may be a good thing.



The one thing they don't want to do is alienate people.



I do believe the structure of the whole needs re-examining at ALL levels but I doubt if that will happen.



My personal view of the RFL, as a whole, is a curates egg

It's just plain common sense that players can't play for clubs in two competitions with overlapping seasons. Yet due to RLCN clubs being reliant on BARLA players there were 5 games called off in the first 3 weeks, due to clubs not having a team, which is a joke in the elite summer amateur league. Below that level, where BARLA players can play, very few non-heartland clubs play clubs with a single BARLA player in til the national playoffs (if teams turn up for them), so the only effect it has is on development clubs from Lancashire/Yorkshire (or Lincolnshire) who end up getting hammered by teams full of BARLA clubs. Hence we have clubs like South Humber Rabbitohs unable to join the RLC when they would be good enough elsewhere. Whether there would be enough clubs in that area without BARLA players I'm not 100% but it could probably be done. In fact the RLC thought about introducing a limit on BARLA players for these reasons.



As for non-heartland development only being possible in summer, well yes that is when clubs can draft in RU players. But the fact is that due to the RLCP only being able to offer a paltry 14 games Coventry lost half their team to Hemel and the other half pretty much all play RU in the winter to get enough rugby. The same will happen with every generation of juniors if the RLC mini-season is all they have to play in, and the best players that play RU will end up on semi-pro contracts and not allowed to play RL and since the players that stick with the Bears will all end up playing RU and RL, the club could have just as easily not run juniors and recruited RU players for the same end result.



Now of course I think the juniors are a good idea, even if it's only to let younger people play rugby league also, but it's hard to see the RLC allowing the benefits to be really gained from junior development. In fact by far the best team in the Midlands Premier, Gloucestershire Warriors, don't run any junior development and yet are consistently good.

Actually, it's something called personal choice. These are amateurs, who have the right to choose what to do themselves. BARLA told at least one Northwestern club which had qualified for the RLC finals that they could not move a BARLA fixture (which their opponents had agreed to) in order to accommodate the finals of the RLC. The club then said fine, they'd play a weakened side in the BARLA game to concentrate on the finals, but would complete both fictures. BARLA then told them if they did they would be ejected from the BARLA competition. This was a very clear attempt by BARLA to prevent any BARLA sides from offering their players the opportunity to play in the RLC. Just to say that in a different way, BARLA are now the only sporting organisation in the country which actively seeks to prevent players from playing in an amateur RL competition of their choice. Even the RFU doesn't place such restrictions on their players any more. Funnily enough, BARLA have no problem with players turning out for their BARLA side and a RU side on the same weekend, but have in the past found several reasons why those same players shouldn't play two games of RL. They are similarly pathetic with kids too, by preventing many kids from playing for the team of their choice through byzantine registration regulations. No mean feat for an organisation dedicated to strengthening the amateur game.



If you're genuinely trying to claim that BARLA have never tried to obstruct and damage the potential spread of the summer game, or the participation of BARLA clubs in RFL-run national competitions, then you've moved past your normal miserable denigration of all things RLC into the realms of delusion.

While BARLA might be far from perfect (and in fact they're nowadays pretty bad, some individual leagues are well run though), but to claim BARLA players in the RLCN is a good thing I'd have to strongly disagree as the first three weeks of the RLCN this year were a complete joke and it would help the RLC to not have too many BARLA players and to put them in separate BARLA summer leagues. Of course this doesn't mean there shouldn't be heartland RLC clubs it just means we shouldn't make believe that players can play two games at the same time, as they clearly can't.



Ultimately the game needs full season leagues and to try to force heartland clubs into the RLC model as you'd have happen would see a huge player exodus to RU as players get sick of a pathetically short season. Those leagues need to exist, I'd rather it be under the RFL, but the game couldn't survive without them. Whether these are summer or winter is up to the clubs to decide ideally both option would be there, but individual players should only play one or the other

as a southerner who only got to play RL via the RLC and summer rugby i'd just like to say if i ran an amateur team and had the choice of RFL or BARLA i'd go for the one that was serving my teams interests not their own.

The London ARL were founder members of BARLA and it was a constant disappointment how poorly we were regarded by the blazers.

However my experience of dealing with the employed staff was very good.

Organizing the Southern Counties Cup a decade ago,I asked BARLA to bear in mind traveling in the first round draw.

Little did I know that Swansea were drawn with Cardiff etc etc. Everyone involved was very satisfied.



However as far as I can see, they have no raison d'etre. The RFL have presided over perhaps the greatest growth in the sport since 1895.



BARLA have done nothing

I'm fairly certain the situations you talk about were down to the more poorly run clubs cancelling games. Or only wanting to play when they can put a winning team out.

Yes but the very fact that they couldn't get out a team at that time of year suggests that having a whole team of BARLA players isn't a good idea in a league that overlaps with BARLA. If clubs like Bramley have some BARLA players but can still get a team out in the overlap it's not a problem, but to expect clubs where every player prioritises BARLA to field a team in the cross-over is plain stupid. I reckon Liverpool, Carlisle and maybe East Lancashire were legitimate in not raising a team, but clearly Underbank were taking advantage of the lack of rules to wait til they got their best team out. Ultimately they need to stop BARLA/winter players who don't prioritise the summer club from playing in the RLC or they need to shorten the season to fit entirely in the off season, which you wouldn't like. Ultimately it's difficult though as Braley, Nottingham Hemel and as far as I can tell Warrington Wizards and Gateshead Storm need the longer season, but the other clubs would be just as well off playing in the RLC Premier. Unfortunately until enough good NCL/BARLA clubs agree to switch en masse entirely we'll be stuck with this problem.

you can't stop amateur players from playing the game, BARLA have tried and failed. well not strictly true the will allow you to be dual registered with the armed forces, police, students and other bodies, and themselves but not with the summer game.



s!



Liverpool have held their hand up and said they should have made their first few games on a Sunday as we do every year and as i have said to you else where.



Carlisle, say the season started too early. and East lancs are the perennial weak link in our competition.

correct! what is BARLA there for? to develop the game? or to maintain itself? the letter at the start of the thread shows exactly what their reason for being is...

ok, development funds get channelled to the RFL, and not BARLA, but could yyou trust them to use it appropriately? i'd say not

Why?



If people want to play all year round why can't they? If people wanted to play 2 games in a day why should anyone stop them?

and they, (as does their club), have the right to pick which game they play, in whichever competition, if there is a clash, (subject to the normal rules of that competition - i.e. concede more than two games, you are not considered for promotion)