Re: Change to non-fed system? : Mon Sep 23, 2013 11:02 pm  

Is this something that is perhaps being done to try and avoid legal action from certain clubs/players? I.e those facing a future of unemployment at London/Cas/Wakey and the good Doctor at Salford who would like to have the salary cap regulations attached to one of his horses and sent riding into the sunset.

Re: Change to non-fed system? : Tue Sep 24, 2013 11:26 am  

I'm not sure what legal action can be taken. It's a governing rule. It does not stop any player playing. It just stops club hiring them. What are they going to say next, that if a team wants to feild 15 players they can or it is a restraint of trade???

Re: Change to non-fed system? : Tue Sep 24, 2013 11:39 am  

bewareshadows wrote:

I'm not sure what legal action can be taken. It's a governing rule. It does not stop any player playing. It just stops club hiring them. What are they going to say next, that if a team wants to feild 15 players they can or it is a restraint of trade???

I'm pretty sure they acknowledged when Super League's overseas rules were established that lawyers could drive a bus through them, but that it was a gentleman's agreement that no one would.

If a couple of clubs go from SL as is planned (I think?) Saints need to be all over the exemptions they hand out like a rash. There are always players worth having and we missed out rather horrendously when Crusaders went.

Re: Change to non-fed system? : Tue Sep 24, 2013 12:37 pm  

Salford have just announced the signing of a prop from Brisbane, so there has to be some truth to this now.
I'm assuming all clubs have known this for a while now?

Re: Change to non-fed system? : Tue Sep 24, 2013 1:10 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

Is this something that is perhaps being done to try and avoid legal action from certain clubs/players? I.e those facing a future of unemployment at London/Cas/Wakey and the good Doctor at Salford who would like to have the salary cap regulations attached to one of his horses and sent riding into the sunset.

Their rationale, if you can call it that, for this change is that because there will be fewer academies then there will be fewer players here so clubs will have to recruit from elsewhere. I guess its so much easier than actually addressing the fundamental problem.

Re: Change to non-fed system? : Tue Sep 24, 2013 1:11 pm  

Judder Man wrote:

Shocking by the RFL. Its a kick in the teeth for clubs investing in youth for our next generation of players, might interest HKR or Salford for short term gain.
Is this the RFL new model of "Framing for the Future".

Hey up another one that seems to have missed that HKR are now within the guidelines.
Genius.

Re: Change to non-fed system? : Tue Sep 24, 2013 3:43 pm  

If Rugby League ever did its autobiography, it would be called either "One Step Forward, Two Steps Back" or "Shooting yourself in the Foot"

There are times when you hear some RFL/SL initiative and you think to yourself, "Hmm,...that's a really good idea..very forward thinking" (or words to that effect, cos nobody actually speaks like that). But mostly when you hear a new initiative you think, to quote the great Oliver Reed, "What fresh lunacy is this??"

The idea of scrapping relegation was the correct one. It promoted longer term planning, did away with the need for short-term panic-buying.

Yet the clubs then voted to scrap the U-21 Academies.

Giant step backwards.

And now they're dicking about with the structure, before the benefits of no-relegation are properly kicking in.

I think that running an Academy should be mandatory for all clubs in SL. If they don't have the financial ability to do so, they shouldn't be in Super League. End of.

Rugby League can be a great entertainment product, but its curse is to constantly tinker with the game, its rules and its competitions. These days, I'm not really a rugby league fan, just a Saints fan. I've had enough of the idiots who run [or should I say ruin] the game with a mixture of short-termism, parochialism and general bumwittery

Re: Change to non-fed system? : Tue Sep 24, 2013 4:06 pm  

The clubs are basically slimming down big time, to try and make the league financially viable.

The massive problem is when you slim down, you can only slim down so far before you become anorexic and there is nothing else left to lose.

Cutting the academies is a huge blow for RL. It kinda makes us less of a sport as we have basically waved the white flag and said that we can't produce our own players.

Imagine any other sport saying it can't produce the players, it would be the death nell.

I'm not usually a pesimit, usually because I can see the path forward and how things can be better, but if you dig up the path forward there is no where to see but backwards.

Is this really as good as it gets?

Re: Change to non-fed system? : Tue Sep 24, 2013 5:15 pm  

Judder Man wrote:

Shocking by the RFL. Its a kick in the teeth for clubs investing in youth for our next generation of players, might interest HKR or Salford for short term gain.
Is this the RFL new model of "Framing for the Future".

Some clubs, despite investing heavily in their youth, have no choice because the 'big clubs' come and take their best young players.

Re: Change to non-fed system? : Tue Sep 24, 2013 8:09 pm  

joburg wrote:

Some clubs, despite investing heavily in their youth, have no choice because the 'big clubs' come and take their best young players.

I know Bradford keep snapping up our youngsters along with Salford and Wigan.