: Tue Feb 10, 2009 4:54 pm  

The Key wrote:

But a maximum of 3 is not anything large at all

i never said it was large, i said it was a fair number.

: Tue Feb 10, 2009 4:57 pm  

RossRhino wrote:

i never said it was large, i said it was a fair number.

And a 'fair number' insinuates a large amount, especially in the context you were using it

: Tue Feb 10, 2009 5:10 pm  

Code13 wrote:

I think the interesting numbers will be in 2 or 3 years time when the clubs in the bottom half of the table arent under so much preassure just to survive

In fact, since they have to have been at the club for 3 years, we will only have a good idea of the effect in two years' time. So at the end of the 2011 season, in time for the next round of franchises...

: Tue Feb 10, 2009 5:14 pm  

JB Down Under wrote:

You could level the same argument re "average" overseas players at most clubs. ... Why after 12 years of Sky money does Bradford go out and sign a 35 year old player? Why with all Wigans success have they signed a has been like Roberts? Rovers have more average pleyers than some clubs but again that is indicative of being a club that has only had 2 years in SL. We have strengthened with decent English players year on year and we will continue to do so.

Very good points there. Bradford and Wigan have no reason to sign the dross that they have, while KR have signed better quality players every year. With Hull being a hotbed of RL, there is no reason why they shouldn't be awash with home-grown SL players in 2 years' time.
(I should qualify "awash" as "about 6")

: Tue Feb 10, 2009 6:59 pm  

belgianxiii wrote:

Very good points there. Bradford and Wigan have no reason to sign the dross that they have, while KR have signed better quality players every year. With Hull being a hotbed of RL, there is no reason why they shouldn't be awash with home-grown SL players in 2 years' time.
(I should qualify "awash" as "about 6")

so probably the best forward in the history of the NRL ( on a one year deal with the stated purpose of helping in the development of our younger players) is a dross signing?

: Tue Feb 10, 2009 7:09 pm  

mat wrote:

so probably the best forward in the history of the NRL ( on a one year deal with the stated purpose of helping in the development of our younger players) is a dross signing?

When did Bradford get Lazarus or Webcke out of retirement?

: Tue Feb 10, 2009 7:53 pm  

Facilitys , thats what you need

: Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:23 pm  

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.

: Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:26 pm  

G1 wrote:

Leeds began its' firm commitment to home grown players and signed the likes of SInfield, JJB, Diskin etc, right at the very beginning of Sl when we were gash.

In fairness to Hetherington he remained committed to the policy whilst many of our own fans were screaming for big name signings and whining that the likes of Burrow, JJB etc weren't good enough.

Quite. For further example, look at the reaction to Bradford signing Sheriffe and Worrincy, both young, both British, both written off by the great unwashed as 'crap' because neither is Israel Folau or Wayne Pearce reborn right now.

The public gets what the public wants, I believe someone wise once said that.

: Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:42 pm  

JB Down Under wrote:

or maybe now we can offer the kids the same pay and conditions as leeds we are able to attract them?

Look I am not in favour of our "dispensation" I would love to see SL restrict imports to 4 per club and have a criteria that they have to had played at rep standard but I am also very realistic that it takes years for a good jnr programme to bare fruit. Signing kids at 14-16 means a good 4-5 years min to see them develop into the first team squad.

You could level the same argument re "average" overseas players at most clubs. Why with Hull's amazing jnr development did they sign Byrne and Dykes?Why after 12 years of Sky money does Bradford go out and sign a 35 year old player? Why with all Wigans success have they signed a has been like Roberts? Rovers have more average pleyers than some clubs but again that is indicative of being a club that has only had 2 years in SL. We have strengthened with decent English players year on year and we will continue to do so. Hopefully some will be our own developed Hull lads, we've done it before and we'll do it again.

Garbage. Horne, Yeaman debuted at 16, Cooke, Briscoe at 17, that's just off the top of my head.

The facts are clear - the RFL highlighted the lack of evidence for your youth development in their franchise application report. Of your 5 "homegrown" players in 2008, Menzies and Watts (neither from your academy) managed a combined 4 games and 21 carries between them. Kirk Netherton (a Hull lad!) has been released to accomodate the stunning Fitzhenry at hooker, I'Anson has been retained, but realistically will be way down the pecking order and is unlikely to get a game unless there's a major injury crisis. I'll give you Welham. Anyone who seriously believes that Morgan will choose to give either Esders or Spaven a run in the first team should give their head a bang.

Morgan will probably want another 2 years at Rovers and is clearly not a fan of the in-house talent development philosophy. Rovers have got through 4 assistant/reserves coaches in the last 18 months. So you're not bringing your own talent through, nor is Hudgell delivering on his promise 2 years ago after signing Cooke that "All the good Hull lads will want to sign for Rovers now". Since then, Yeaman, Hall, Washbrook, Richard Horne and Houghton have all signed extensions with FC.

I'd give your argument up, fella. Rovers do lots of things well and your success on the pitch has been impressive, but Welham apart your youth development remains shabby.