Looks that way to me. The seperate 5 quota players possibly still exists. Chisholm's French passport was apparently relevant last year, and that isn't part of the non-fed rule.

Bit weird how some rule changes are announced with a big splash, and others get no coverage at all.

Would love to ask Blake Solly a few questions about quotas and caps. My life isn't quite as empty as that makes it sound.

Well, yes. A fundamental element of franchising, and strategy to build homegrown talent, quietly deleted whilst we were looking the other way.

Better late than never (not). I guess clubs will be aware of what's changing, but it seems to be very late in the day to ratify them.

aye, a flawed strategy on a number of levels, both conceptually and in the execution, but one that was indeed heralded as fundamental and potentially transformative.

I'm not sure whether the quiet indicates embarrassment about that original plan, or whether they were/are so convinced it could/should work that they're a bit ashamed to be dismantling it.

I don't want another top down master plan, but it'd be good to hear what lessons were learnt and what the thinking is now.

Different clubs trying different things seems to be the fashion. While it might not seem very coherent, a bit of experimenting, adaptation and flexibility will probably work better for more clubs than suggesting everybody try to ape Wigan, Saints and Leeds, irrespective of their circumstances, IMO.

if nothing else we get to see who really thinks club homegrown is the way forward and who thinks the sweepings-up from other clubs is a more cost-effective way to subsist. I can't see that there's a conceptual argument against clubs bringing their own through. It builds numbers, engages fans and provides opportunities. Based on this year our respective clubs' direction of travel are to polar opposites. Be interesting to see where this takes us both in three years and how many genuine first teamers coming through the academy each club fields. And what the correlation coefficient is to league position, for example.

The question was addressed to R.B.A. if you read my post

It is how you achieve the outcome, rather than whether it is desirable - which of course it is. You mention cost-effectiveness though, and that is key.

I think it is fair to judge Rovers' production line, relative to other SL clubs of a similar size, based on output over the last 4 years or so. And it is fair to say it has been poor. And unlikely to have been cost-effective. I'd speculate that is due to some of the following:
lack of resource and/or inefficient use of it
the wrong people identifying and/or developing talent

Well down the list would be not listening to the RFL as they pointed at Wigan and said 'See?', or heavily buying in to one of their inevitably ephemeral half-baked incentive schemes, based on nice, if not very robust, assumptions.

So we're trying a different approach, along with you, in the new merged academy. I think that might well be more cost-effective than the current approach.
You're also running an under-23s, which might genuinely be a supply-side solution. From a whole-game pov, imo it isn't the optimal solution, but ours is a very (SL) club centric sport, so it seems like a good option, if it is affordable. If it works I'd be happy to see us jump on board in a couple of years.




Our weak production line is a problem for us, and will mean we are sailing into a head wind in the next few years, on the pitch. Which is fair enough - the success or failure of these systems has a direct impact, and brings its own rewards/challenges. Self-interest should sufficient motivation for clubs to do their best, across all their priority areas. My hope is we can catch up by finding a few more Lawlers and maybe a Shaul or two. It'll be tough, but this rule change does/would give us more options, and arguably SL opportunities to more players.
Hull's challenge will be to meet heightened expectations, as their golden generation matures.
Correlations can be interesting, but focusing on just one element that shapes success won't be very meaningful. There's a bigger picture and a number of priorities across which to thinly spread limited resources. Feels to me now that clubs are a bit more free to make their own decisions, and take responsibility for the consequences.