None of this prevents Leigh coaching junior players. The rules just say they can't call their scheme an RFL accredited scholarship because they don't meet the criteria for accreditation.

Surely you agree there should be criteria? And that if our junior structure is to be a "performance pathway" that the pathway doesn't have unnecessary dead-ends.

Quite right tb, if a Championship club with Super League aspirations can't see that that is a serious hinderance then in my opinion that club isn't fit to run a Scholarship programme or any kind of player development programme as they obviously don't understand the basics of player development pathways etc.


Yeah because 13 year old rugby league players are noted for their intelligence and forward thinking.

I imagine that their parents may have some input, sufficient to perhaps weigh up the pros and cons of signing up with the local club (and a limited development path, at that club) or a club further away with a pathway right through to the first team (in theory).

How many 13 year olds on scholarships actually make it all the way through to first team rugby for the club they sign onto the scholarship programme with?

I don't see why this is a dead end. The good players (that want to continue their development) will be signed up at clubs that run under 18's the not so good ones won't, in any event all will have gained from the availability of another scholarship programme.

Or perhaps Leigh can do this:

Who?

Or is it just to support the current salary cap debate going on over in the nrl.

It appears the RFL took the stance that Leigh wouldn't comply with the minimum standards surrounding the LTPD model.

As for the salary cap exemption debate - personally I think that 1 per team, 50% of wage exempt from the salary cap would be a good way to go. But would have to be first pro RL contract to stop any shenanigans that would doubtless ensue otherwise.
I think it would encourage teams to go for Union players who sadly are more well known in the media than our own players. I don't think there would be much "damage" to youth development since it would be giving the game a higher profile.

There seems to be two schools of thought on the salary cap:

1. Its there to stifle clubs in order to make an even competetion and allow poor clubs to compete with the well off, thus essentially penalising said big clubs. Folk with this opinion constantly look for ways around the cap, examptions, or just things to blame on it.

2. (and this is mine) If there wasn't a salary cap then the combination of running a sports club as a successful business with the general lack of money in sport would mean, sooner or later (probably), every club would end up oversreached financially and looking at insolvency, thus causing an awful lot more damage to the sport than losing Chris Ashton to RU.

quade cooper.