: Wed Feb 11, 2009 9:50 am  

Roy Haggerty wrote:

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.

so seeing as you have just 'won' the franchise argument, what next?

is it time for a contentious forward pass yet? that Salary Cap is a bit poop isnt it, doesnt work? and BTW it was definately a voluntary tackle, clear as day

Re: Saints, Champions of Junior development : Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:12 am  

The Chair Maker wrote:

According to the RFL's own regulations regarding the development of players. Saints have come top in terms of "club trained players"


Saints have 14 of our 25 man squad in that category

Next are Leeds and Hull with 13
then
Wigan have 11
Bradford 10
Warrington 10
Castleford 7
Catalans 6
Quins 5
Wakefield 5
Salford 5
Huddersfield 4
Hull KR 1
Celtic 0

Wigan's is actually 16 out of 29.

The '25' man squad at Wigan includes the unused 22 and the cheesy 18 the fans.

So to be pedantic, the first 25 listed players contain 12 academy products.

[Mild Rover]

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:25 am  

Smokey.

Promising youngsters were more likely to sign for clubs whose SL future looked assured. Rovers future is now secure for 3 years. If we produce, on average, one or two good SL players per year that will give us long-term stability. Welham looks like he might be the first. Watts has the potential to be the second. Some lad whose voice hasn't broken yet might be the tenth and another in nappies might be ready when Welham retires.

Your 'invest more' (and incidentally your anti-cap stance) suggest you think that SL clubs are all awash with cash and are just hiding it under the mattress. And it isn't as simple as spending less on the first team and more on youth, as it is the first team that drives income - if that is rubbish, there'll be even less to spend on youth.

You are right about compulsion though. Ring-fencing some of the Sky cash each club gets for youth development or something like that, I'd be in favour of. It'd have the advantage of being legal and could be applied more or less immediately.

Out of interest (and I genuinely don't know how this will go); over the last two years we have given SL debuts to 6 homegrown players (I think) - how does that compare with other clubs, for the same period?

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 10:49 am  

Mild Rover wrote:

Smokey.
Promising youngsters were more likely to sign for clubs whose SL future looked assured. Rovers future is now secure for 3 years. If we produce, on average, one or two good SL players per year that will give us long-term stability. Welham looks like he might be the first. Watts has the potential to be the second. Some lad whose voice hasn't broken yet might be the tenth and another in nappies might be ready when Welham retires.

so why not go get some young british players from elsewhere in the meantime? until those come through? young british players and NL1 players should be the fall back, to fill your squad, not imports

Your 'invest more' (and incidentally your anti-cap stance) suggest you think that SL clubs are all awash with cash and are just hiding it under the mattress. And it isn't as simple as spending less on the first team and more on youth, as it is the first team that drives income - if that is rubbish, there'll be even less to spend on youth.

But that is the same for all clubs, not just HKR!, 'rubbish' is relative in this context, by Hull KR not being 'rubbish' (i.e bottom 4) it means someone else is, and that someone else maybe a team who has tried to give a shot to youth, so we are rewarding HKR for not doing what we want, and punishing a club for doing exactly what we want,

so whilst you giving loads of foreigners a go to 'drive your income' another club is losing out on that because they have done what the game needs!

also, if all clubs are playing with few imports, it will start to encourage coaches to give more youngsters a go, a coach may be nervous about putting a young gun up against an old Pro like Stanley Gene, but he may be more likely to see how he does against Chaz I'anson

You are right about compulsion though. Ring-fencing some of the Sky cash each club gets for youth development or something like that, I'd be in favour of. It'd have the advantage of being legal and could be applied more or less immediately.

clubs need to see a downside to not investing in youth, they need to see a downside to not bringing them through, right now, if you dont have them, bring an Aussie or a kiwi over, thats the route HKR have taken, but it shouldnt be like that, clubs should struggle if they dont bring them through, they should struggle so much, that it becomes better to spend £100k on bringing in 3 of the most talented 16 year olds in the country and give a shot to a 21 year old NL1 player in the mean time than bringing over say Daniel Fitzhenry

Out of interest (and I genuinely don't know how this will go); over the last two years we have given SL debuts to 6 homegrown players (I think) - how does that compare with other clubs, for the same period?

depends what you mean by homegrown? brought through the academy or a youngster signed from elsewhere?

i dont know about everyone else but in teh past two years Leeds have given debuts to Kaye, McShane, Watkins, Haley, Burgess, Worrall, Allan, BJB, Chandler, Ratu,

[Mild Rover]

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 11:32 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

see above

I think we agree on the crucial point - that the system needs to encourage youth development (with both carrot and stick).

That it hasn't done this for a club in HKR's or Wakefield's circumstances, is the fault of the system not the clubs, who are always going to pursue their own best interests. If you are just using Rovers to illustrate that point, then fair enough. If you blame us for dealing with the situation we faced rather than the one we might have wished for - and it sometimes seems you do - then I think you are being mean.

Hardman and K. Netherton could have been retained, in place of a couple of fringe overseas players and I wouldn't have complained. That debate always leaves me with mixed feelings though - the warm glow of investing in the homegrown, vs the feeling it is a bit protectionist, discriminatory and insular.

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 11:50 am  

Mild Rover wrote:

I think we agree on the crucial point - that the system needs to encourage youth development (with both carrot and stick).

That it hasn't done this for a club in HKR's or Wakefield's circumstances, is the fault of the system not the clubs, who are always going to pursue their own best interests. If you are just using Rovers to illustrate that point, then fair enough. If you blame us for dealing with the situation we faced rather than the one we might have wished for - and it sometimes seems you do - then I think you are being mean.

Hardman and K. Netherton could have been retained, in place of a couple of fringe overseas players and I wouldn't have complained. That debate always leaves me with mixed feelings though - the warm glow of investing in the homegrown, vs the feeling it is a bit protectionist, discriminatory and insular.

you see, thats really all i would be looking for, i dont mind overseas players, i think Ali Lauitiiti is the most exciting player i have watched in 10 years, i love the way he plays, and i dont think there is a british player like him (thats not to say he is the best or anything, i just like his all or nothing, try or turnover approach to offloading) but i think sometimes clubs get sidetracked into the short term gains of overseas players than the long term gains of getting a youth developments system in place and giving a shot to youngsters.

I dont really blame anyone, i think the law makes it nearly impossible for the RFL to do anything, and clubs are self interested, some of the excuses for something that doesnt really need excusing, annoy me, there is no defence what HKR have done, they have looked after themselves ahead of the game, so have wakefield and many other clubs for a a few years, it doesnt need excusing, its just how it is,

which is why i think we need to make it difficult, we cant ban overseas players as we have seen, at the first sign of trouble the system collapses, so we need to make a situation where clubs can bring in all the foreigners they want, but they will be poop, and they will have a poop team.

The only way to avoid this situation in the future, is to cut the cap in half, take all youth developed by that club of the SC, it is a silly counterproductive action, have players signed from NL1 and developing nations count half, british players from SL count 3/4s and overseas imports count full..

added to this we should rejigg the TV payment so 50% goes directly to the club, 25% is ringfenced for youth development and the other 25% goes into a pot with all the other clubs, who will earn 2% back for every player they have developed, regardless of where they play now, who gets an international cap for a british or european (id include other northern hemisphere nations too, i.e west indies, Lebanon, USA etc) nation during that season

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 12:01 pm  

Mild Rover wrote:

That debate always leaves me with mixed feelings though - the warm glow of investing in the homegrown, vs the feeling it is a bit protectionist, discriminatory and insular.

The reason the Aussies produce comparitavely vast numbers of players is because they have to, they have no other choice. There is no-one else producing players for them.

In our country, too many people simply don't care where the players come from, there's always plenty of cheap ready made ones frome the Southern Hemisphere, and the overwhelming neccessity to produce our own hasn't been there

TBH I wish we had a bit more insularity and downright xenophobia when it comes to RL

Re: Saints, Champions of Junior development : Wed Feb 11, 2009 12:03 pm  

The Chair Maker wrote:

According to the RFL's own regulations regarding the development of players. Saints have come top in terms of "club trained players"

Club trained players are players who are on the clubs register and were trained by that club for three years before that player reached the age of 21.

Saints have 14 of our 25 man squad in that category

Next are Leeds and Hull with 13
then
Wigan have 11
Bradford 10
Warrington 10
Castleford 7
Catalans 6
Quins 5
Wakefield 5
Salford 5
Huddersfield 4
Hull KR 1
Celtic 0

I think its interesting to note the performance of Quins and Catalans.
They are developing players as well or better than a number of the traditional heartland clubs.

Hull KR's performance on the development front is pathetic, and is in stark contrast to the excellent work of Hull FC.

Matt Blaymire was club trained and was in our Academy, whilst for some reason Southernwood is missed off altogether though he may not have done a full 3 years yet.

So we are 7.

Re: Saints, Champions of Junior development : Wed Feb 11, 2009 12:06 pm  

The Chair Maker wrote:

According to the RFL's own regulations regarding the development of players. Saints have come top in terms of "club trained players"

Club trained players are players who are on the clubs register and were trained by that club for three years before that player reached the age of 21.

Saints have 14 of our 25 man squad in that category

Next are Leeds and Hull with 13
then
Wigan have 11
Bradford 10
Warrington 10
Castleford 7
Catalans 6
Quins 5
Wakefield 5
Salford 5
Huddersfield 4
Hull KR 1
Celtic 0

I think its interesting to note the performance of Quins and Catalans.
They are developing players as well or better than a number of the traditional heartland clubs.

Hull KR's performance on the development front is pathetic, and is in stark contrast to the excellent work of Hull FC.

That is ridiculously unfair, HKR have only been in SL 2 years. Whilst they were NL1 there was little chance they could attract SL quality youngsters especially with Hull FC on their doorstep. Come on get real.

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 12:20 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

yes, yes, its the big bad bigger clubs stealing all the players again

blah blah blah poor old leigh, other clubs being bigger means their small, its not their fault blah blah blah

yes we get it, you feel hard done by nobody cares

Even you must face the fact that there are only ever a limited number of gifted juniors and the best (appear best at that age) will go to the club with the biggest cheque book and most prestige. It's not rocket science it's how it's always been. Thankfully some big names never make it whilst others written off by the bigger clubs like Ellis thrive which evens it up a bit.

Leeds will always produce more young players because they have the cash to take the risk. You can kid yourself all you like but those of us who know the game know Leeds speculate on youngsters because they can.

Trinity had a fantastic crop of youngsters in early 2000 including Ellis, Mason, Snitch, Feather, Brough and Westwood. We have not achieved that since despite increased spending. The reason is simple we can get what we can afford, do the best we can with them and then hope that occasionally we strike it rich like Cas have of late. Leeds can chuck money at it each year and know it will work out.

Wakefield could go mental trying to sign youngsters but it would make little difference IMHO as the best would still go to the champion team and all we would be doing is paying second tier prospects more than they are worth.

Try and be realistic for once.