Re: Shopping list for 2025 : Wed Aug 21, 2024 1:22 pm  

Mild Rover wrote:

And the amount of good it does them.

Are you appealing to clubs’ better natures, or sense of duty… suggesting that they should do the ‘right thing’? That’s nice and everything, but not a sound basis for developing a policy or system that might work.

The issue is that most clubs would be investing at the expense of other key parts of their business, and are not guaranteed any direct benefit. Even if they produce good players, they’ll be picked off.

The return on investment on player development is really bad. So, unless you can subsidise it with money you can’t spend elsewhere (i.e., you’re a relatively rich club constrained to some degree by the the salary cap), or you have system that is able to accept a poor direct return (same principle as a key public service), it won’t work very well.

Again I disagree, the return is really good if you get it right, no coincidence the most successful teams have strong academies.

Definitely don't have to be rich, we certainly haven't been and have invested and finally seeing the benefits.

But yes, also think clubs should be doing for the greater good of the game and these new quota rules won't help the game at all.

Re: Shopping list for 2025 : Wed Aug 21, 2024 1:31 pm  

With regards to Lam, all I can assume has happened is that the clause was only for NRL clubs in the end, and his agent mis-understood the contract. The wording from Lam Snr that Lachlan would be there next year - it wasn't a new deal, new contract, or he had turned us down, it was just that he would be at Leigh next year

Re: Shopping list for 2025 : Wed Aug 21, 2024 1:35 pm  

Saddest part of all of this is just realising exactly how far we have fallen - we are a VERY tough sell to any player with real aspirations.

Getting a top class half is obviously a priority, but our forwards will still lack go forward ( Herman excluded ) & our backs lack pace.

JC needs to bring a majic wand with him.

Re: Shopping list for 2025 : Wed Aug 21, 2024 1:36 pm  

Forgotten about the top class hooker we were talking about too, Danny Houghton critics should be realising just what a loss he will be next year.

Re: Shopping list for 2025 : Wed Aug 21, 2024 1:39 pm  

al283 wrote:

Saddest part of all of this is just realising exactly how far we have fallen - we are a VERY tough sell to any player with real aspirations.

Getting a top class half is obviously a priority, but our forwards will still lack go forward ( Herman excluded ) & our backs lack pace.

JC needs to bring a majic wand with him.

Pack isn't too bad,

Ese Ese
Cust
Aydin
Cartwright
Holmes
Asiata

If we have Walker/Moy, Barron and Martin we have some pace, but definitely need another centre and 6.

Still think we will add two more forwards, although not sure whsr the quality of those will be as must be non quota.

Re: Shopping list for 2025 : Wed Aug 21, 2024 1:41 pm  

al283 wrote:

Forgotten about the top class hooker we were talking about too, Danny Houghton critics should be realising just what a loss he will be next year.

Not based on his performances the last two years he won't, should have retired last season.

He is better than Smith for sure, but that's not saying much.

[Chris71]

Re: Shopping list for 2025 : Wed Aug 21, 2024 2:53 pm  

Dave K. wrote:

al283 wrote:

Forgotten about the top class hooker we were talking about too, Danny Houghton critics should be realising just what a loss he will be next year.

Not based on his performances the last two years he won't, should have retired last season.

He is better than Smith for sure, but that's not saying much.

Would have to agree with Dave.K, in his prime yes Danny was a real asset to the 17 every week but sadly through poor recruitment, poor coaching and over playing him he has not been anywhere near for quite some time. The over sentimentality is another reason why we are where we are, look at the the teams who've regularly been at the top in any sport, they are ruthless in retention/recruitment and more often than not get rid just before a players ability starts to drop off. We on the other hand have always left it far too late an renewed deals over too long a term etc. For me a quota player should be with a club no more than 4-5 years max as squads need to be kept fresh and on its toes, instead we've bred failure and no accountability.

Re: Shopping list for 2025 : Wed Aug 21, 2024 3:08 pm  

Irregs#16 wrote:

With regards to Lam, all I can assume has happened is that the clause was only for NRL clubs in the end, and his agent mis-understood the contract. The wording from Lam Snr that Lachlan would be there next year - it wasn't a new deal, new contract, or he had turned us down, it was just that he would be at Leigh next year

Could just be that Hull was the only offer on the table so he decided to stay put. He can negotiate with other clubs for 2026 at the end of this season now anyways with the new rule, the way he’s been playing his stock will only go up maybe he’s waiting for more of bidding war when clubs have more wriggle room on the salary cap.

Re: Shopping list for 2025 : Wed Aug 21, 2024 3:12 pm  

DSJ1983 wrote:

Could just be that Hull was the only offer on the table so he decided to stay put. He can negotiate with other clubs for 2026 at the end of this season now anyways with the new rule, the way he’s been playing his stock will only go up maybe he’s waiting for more of bidding war when clubs have more wriggle room on the salary cap.

He wants to play in Australia and thats where he will go when his contract expires at Leigh

[Mild Rover]

Re: Shopping list for 2025 : Wed Aug 21, 2024 3:16 pm  

Dave K. wrote:

Again I disagree, the return is really good if you get it right, no coincidence the most successful teams have strong academies.

It’s not exactly a coincidence, but it is also not the major causative effect. Wigan and Saints make a big deal about it because it makes them feel better about the success that they buy. See also ‘culture’. Fans of other clubs like it because it gives them hope, however misplaced.

Dave K. wrote:

Definitely don't have to be rich, we certainly haven't been and have invested and finally seeing the benefits.

I’m struggling to respond to that, I’ll admit.

Dave K. wrote:

But yes, also think clubs should be doing for the greater good of the game and these new quota rules won't help the game at all.

Planning on that basis won’t work though, no matter how well-intentioned. And that’s a real shame for young players more than anybody else. Individual clubs have to understand and pursue their own self interest. They sink if they don’t. That means recognising the areas where they should compete and those where they should act collectively and perhaps not have direct control. However, the interests of the SL clubs are far from perfectly aligned and the current system does benefit some of the richest and most powerful, even if it is to the detriment of the sport overall. That’s not the fault of those wealthier clubs and they do put up with the salary cap, in fairness. It just reflects that SL has a mix of clubs of quite different sizes and available resource.