: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:12 pm  

Starbug wrote:

You do know I am a Leigh fan

Oh dear, what an insult to you I'm used to doing battle with bitter KR fans.

Unreserved apologies - your post makes perfect sense now. Congrats on Leigh's youth development - there truly is no justice in the world....

Roll on 2012.

: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:18 pm  

WormInHand wrote:

Oh dear, what an insult to you I'm used to doing battle with bitter KR fans.

Unreserved apologies - your post makes perfect sense now. Congrats on Leigh's youth development - there truly is no justice in the world....

Roll on 2012.

But as I said , what good has it done us ?

What will keep Rovers in SL in 2012

4/5 juniors in a bottom 4 side with 6,500 attendances and financial problems ?

Or a team in the play offs with 9,500 on a packed Craven park and a max salary cap squad ?

Justice ? , we dont want justice , we just want sport , if we cannot have sport we just want honesty

: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:32 pm  

Starbug wrote:

But as I said , what good has it done us ?

What will keep Rovers in SL in 2012

4/5 juniors in a bottom 4 side with 6,500 attendances and financial problems ?

Or a team in the play offs with 9,500 on a packed Craven park and a max salary cap squad ?

Justice ? , we dont want justice , we just want sport , if we cannot have sport we just want honesty

You are right in that goal-posts were shifted to accommodate Celtic. And to a certain extent Harlequins. I wouldn't be so confident about Rovers' ability to retain their Grade C licence if they maintain their current "progress", though.

Equally startling is Wakefield's failure to secure the Promised Land, with talk of borrowing Fev's new 6500 capacity ground. I think many clubs will renage on their commitments in the current financial climate and I think the 2012 Super League could look somewhat different.

And I've always believed the heartland clubs should take precedence over expansion for expansion's sake - would that the RFL see that too next time round. As for honesty...

: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:53 pm  

WormInHand wrote:

You are right in that goal-posts were shifted to accommodate Celtic. And to a certain extent Harlequins. I wouldn't be so confident about Rovers' ability to retain their Grade C licence if they maintain their current "progress", though.

Equally startling is Wakefield's failure to secure the Promised Land, with talk of borrowing Fev's new 6500 capacity ground. I think many clubs will renage on their commitments in the current financial climate and I think the 2012 Super League could look somewhat different.

And I've always believed the heartland clubs should take precedence over expansion for expansion's sake - would that the RFL see that too next time round. As for honesty...

New stadia are irrelivant to whether clubs should be in SL

To remove any club because they have not been fortunate to have a obliging council would be crazy

Leigh were not ready and most likely will never be ready even with the use of a shiney new ' facility '

If you are going to remove the ' sporting ladder ' at least have the balls to say that is what you are going to do

Now the decision is made to remove any club will be to kill that club

It cannot and will not happen and to use a dissapointing youth development as the reason would be even dafter

So much of youth development is down to luck , profile of the recruiting club and of course ' facilitys ' despite what some on here believe

: Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:56 pm  

WormInHand wrote:

And I've always believed the heartland clubs should take precedence over expansion for expansion's sake - would that the RFL see that too next time round. As for honesty...

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 ?

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 12:21 am  

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 ?

Perhaps he meant geographical expansion for geographical expansion's sake? Which may, but does not necessarily, lead to more fans, more money, more players etc. Infact in the short term at least, it is more likely to detrimental to the factors you indicate.

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 8:22 am  

Barnacle Bill wrote:

Perhaps he meant geographical expansion for geographical expansion's sake? Which may, but does not necessarily, lead to more fans, more money, more players etc. Infact in the short term at least, it is more likely to detrimental to the factors you indicate.

But by definition, all expansion is geographical. Starting a team in a suburb of Leeds which doesn't have one, would be geographical expansion.

Anyway, nobody in their right mind would believe that anyone was establishing clubs just for the sake of pins on a map. All clubs are started with the view of more fans, more players, more money, more coverage, . Sometimes that may work, sometimes it won't. Nobody really knows until it's been tried.

The point I'm making is that this idea that the RFL establish new clubs purely to establish a new club, is clearly nonsense. They assist new clubs for the same reasons any sport would assist any new club - to grow. That's not expansion for expansion's sake, it's expansion for the sake of growth. I guess there's a reason why people say "I'm against expansion for expansion's sake", rather than "I'm against expansion for growth's sake", which is that while the former statement is meaningless, the latter, more accurate, statement is hard to justify except in a purely self-interested, narrow-horizoned sort of way.

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 9:41 am  

Wellsy13 wrote:

Some people seem to be under the impression that just because a club has players in its academy they can promote any of these to the first team squad and will eventually become a decent player. Players should not be forced into a squad if they are not good enough for it.

Is it a good thing for a club to be forced to employ a player from their academy that (in their opinion) will never make the grade? Because this is what some people are suggesting when they say "take the bullet and promote youngsters". It is pointless promoting a youngster that will, in expert opinion, just not make it. It will damage the club, the standards of the comp, etc. It is not as simple as filling up a squad with players from your academy. You promote them when they are ready, not because you have to. Otherwise you could damage their development.

In Hull KR's case, their academy has been poor in attracting decent juniors and perhaps also developing them to a standard deemed good enough, which is why they haven't got many in their squad. They have only had 2 seasons under their belt. They sacrificed their academy dedication to concentrate on getting SL and then getting a franchise which they have achieved. They are now concentrating on bringing up the rest of their franchise up to scratch. It takes more than 2 years to attract decent youngsters through their scholarship scheme and develop them through their academies into SL players, and anyone asking them to promote players into the first team before they are ready obviously hasn't a clue about player development. Such policies in our sport that force this sort of action would probably weaken player development, not strengthen.

If, in 2011, Hull KR are still in the position they are in regards home-grown talent (as well as the state of the stadium) then I will agree then. But all signs for them are pointing up at the moment as a club progressing.

You missed the point

What you have put here is, in the main, correct, but those are the reasons we need to do it! As you say HKR clearly put youth development on the back burner, they shouldn’t have been allowed to do that, for all heartland teams youth development should be their greatest strength, but they don’t, Hull KR have been allowed to get away with not putting the necessary investment into youth rugby, and that is wrong, it damages the stability of all sides, and the game in this country.

And yes you promote young players when they are ready, but some clubs aren’t going out and finding these youngsters, the fact Hull KR haven’t done this in the last three years isnt because the youngsters aren’t there, but because they haven’t gone out and found them! Since HKR have been promoted Leeds have given debuts to Ryan Hall, Simon Worrall, and Kallum Watkins, none of which were signed to a pro club when Hull KR were promoted, Why can Leeds find these three players and not HKR? The answer is simple, because youth development isnt a priority, and until we make it a priority we will continue to see some clubs doing cast amounts more than others, and how can we make it a priority, by limiting the players a club can bring in from elsewhere so that to be competitive the need to bring through quality from their academies, and if that isnt there, they need to go out and find a Ryan Hall, a Simon Worrall, a Kallum Watkins, or look in the lower leagues,

Academy and youth development should never be sacrificed, it is how our game will keep on growing, and keep on surviving, Hull KR wont implode because they swap Bob Beswick for Stanley Gene and Ben Kaye for Ben Fisher, and go on to finish 10th instead of 9th, if they would, they should never have been given a place to start with

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 9:45 am  

Starbug wrote:

But as I said , what good has it done us ?

What will keep Rovers in SL in 2012

4/5 juniors in a bottom 4 side with 6,500 attendances and financial problems ?

Or a team in the play offs with 9,500 on a packed Craven park and a max salary cap squad ?

Justice ? , we dont want justice , we just want sport , if we cannot have sport we just want honesty

what if they get neither? decision is made in 2011, they only have two more years in to get in the play-offs which is by no means guaranteed, they could easily end up with no juniors in a bottom 4 side with 6500 and financial problems,

seems a lot of pressure for Rhys Lovegrove, Stanley Gene, Makali Aizue and Ben Fisher

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 9:47 am  

Starbug wrote:

So much of youth development is down to luck , profile of the recruiting club and of course ' facilitys ' despite what some on here believe

what are these facilitys you speak of? is it some new fandangled Leigh thing?

over here in Leeds we invested heavily in our training facilities, and also pay some high quality coaches,

it is just luck however as to why we do well in youth development,

after all, if its not luck,you might have to admit someone has done something well