Completely agree. The continued absence of an U23 competition is only harming player development.

To sign Graham we would have to buy him out of his current Canterbury contract. We would then have to stump up enough for his wages which are currently at £355k so it would require a lot of money for the club to find!

Scrapping the u23s is the biggest mistake rugby league has made in years. It's one of the first things Id bring back.

Wouldn't say no to a front 4 of Graham, Walmsley, Amor and Tasi!

Hopefully we'll see a return of u23 next year (I believe there are plans for an "optional" league) and further incentives for youth development (75k isn't alot compared to the cost of finding, training and making a "marquee"icon_wink.gif

Can,t see this ruling having a lot of impact, for me a marquee means just that and should be a creditable value of £200k and £300k respectively at least.

Before criticizing dropping the U23s, let's not forget we've never had it so good in terms of the volume and quality of young starlets.

Meanwhile, Aussie fans are genuinely beginning to question where the next superstar is coming from. Perhaps this is typical Aussie hysteria - but you'd be hard pushed to suggest this last year was a vintage. Lot of big stars coming to the ends of their careers. What's behind them doesn't fill you with the fear it once did.

We already beat them comfortably in the pack, IMO - with more kids coming through.

Now we're showing signs of competing in the centres and on the wings. The cat would [ureally [/ube among the pigeons if we could field someone classier in just one of four positions (centres, halves, loose).

I'm not suggesting this switch in fortunes is purely because of abandoning U23s. But I don't think you can discount it entirely.

After all, the whole argument went something like - [i"It'll improve the kids". [/i

Well, the kids have improved...

McManus is very passionate about the effect scrapping the u23s had on the game. What do plsyers who hit 20yr of age good now? They either get sent out on loan at lower league teams or cut loose.

Some players haven't develped yet at 19 and need more time. We could be losing a large player pool of 20yr old kids out the sport because they haven't physically grown yet.

As McManus said, for the sake of £40k a year it's disgusting.

Maybe it was too far going down to under 19s. Maybe a good compromise would have been to go to under 21s????

We, had U15's, U16's, U18's and U23's. There was nothing wrong with that system.

Agreed.

Wasn't this change to the youth teams only this year or last? I think the requirement to have a decent youth system in place to get a SL tick was a major part in the better development of youth.

The changes now will only impact in 5-10 years time really. Allowing clubs to scrimp on youth development is bad for the game as a whole.

You don't need to tell me what it was, I know that. I'm suggesting a compromise might have worked better than a full cut. If that debate is beyond you then forget it.

Yes it was and your totally right. The youngsters running around super league mostly came through with the other system. The impact of scrapping u23s will not be seen for few years.

I don't like that certain teams in the lower leagues are duel reg. Ive been to see rochadale few times and it was like saints reserves. This must stop local rochdale talent getting a look in also.

The has been no benefit of scrapping u23s apart from a £40k saving for each club.

How long ago was the u23s? I don't remember that age group.

I recall the u21s before it changed to u20s, with both allowing a certain number of over age players, but don't recall u23s in the recent to mid past.

The most successful academy system in respect of producing players as the u18s and u21 models. Should go back to this with say 3 overage players allowed at u21s.

To go to a full reserve team set up would just mean clubs stockpiling championship level players to the detriment of the Championship and the league below.

We should just put an end to the dreams of the Championship clubs and make them feeder clubs. Lets be honest, bar Leigh and Bradford, there isn't an English side in the competition that is worthy of even a minutes consideration for SL. It seems to work well in Australia?

The U23's was reserve grade in 2008 and 2009. It then went to U20's in 2010, 2011 and 2012 and U19's up until now. From 2002 - 2007 it was U21's.

That was just top academy level, we have had various junior academy levels from U15 to U18.

The other down side is that when your team put's out a team like we did at Odsal years ago, you can't sing the A-team theme tune anymore.

Would kyle Eastmond be a good call as he's home grown?

There's only one homegrown player we should be looking to bring home with the marquee rule and he's ginger!

I'm just not sure where Kyle would play in league anymore, centre? In the time it would take to relearn league (especially the defensive aspects) would he be any better than Turner? I'm not sure and it seems a lot of investment for "no better than Turner" - I have heard he's returning to league though

Jammer will be back in the red V but not for two years yet.

Eastmomd is much better than Turner. Eastmomd looked like the Next big thing. He was badly advised Imo but he's made a bucket load of cash.

He could play fullback, centre or the halves. We are crying out for a player to pull off individual brilliance out of nothing in them games we struggle.

Like you said, he's been out the game a long time and Might not hit the form we'd expect like many others that return to league.

Two years is too long



I'd be very interested in seeing Eastmond at fullback, it takes away my concern about learning defensive structure, and he could inject himself when he likes which would suit him! Would only happen if Lomax's exploratory surgery was worse than expected (as 3 fullbacks is way too many) though and I thought there was some positive news there?

Turner has been in great form, and one of the best centres in the league in the last month or so, I'm not sure how easy it is to say Eastmond is much better than him - I think you could say eastmonds potential was much better than him when he was last in league - but that was what 5 years ago? I know there are rumours warrington are chasing him, I'd rather took the Evans brothers off their hands (whom are supposedly being cleared out for Eastmond)

Quote ="St pete"Would kyle Eastmond be a good call as he's home grown?'" I'd want Eastmond back before Graham in an ideal world. British halves with that level of talent don't grow on trees. Graham will be knocking on in years and been battered from the NRL, plus we aren't exactly short at prop. Judging by this however, Eastmond is going pretty well at Bath, left us in pretty acrimonious circumstances and is rumoured to be on circa 300K a year. Not sure where Saints find the additional 200K from...... www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugb ... 85982.html Oh and by the way, I can say with the most ridiculous ease that Kyle Eastmond is a much better player than Jordan Turner. Not even up for debate.

Quote ="St pete"Would kyle Eastmond be a good call as he's home grown?'" I'd want Eastmond back before Graham in an ideal world. British halves with that level of talent don't grow on trees. Graham will be knocking on in years and been battered from the NRL, plus we aren't exactly short at prop. Judging by this however, Eastmond is going pretty well at Bath, left us in pretty acrimonious circumstances and is rumoured to be on circa 300K a year. Not sure where Saints find the additional 200K from...... www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugb ... 85982.html Oh and by the way, I can say with the most ridiculous ease that Kyle Eastmond is a much better player than Jordan Turner. Not even up for debate.

I'd be in for eastmond. But only to bid Warrington up. Reckon he'd come back and be a Harris. Less pace and less speed of thought.

'If clubs chase the dream and go bust in the process, so be it'.

This is the level of idiocy the game is filled with. A quote from the Pie board. The irony that they don't even have any money themselves is hilarious. They all appear oblivious to the fact they don't have any assets and are built on sand. They expect Lenaghan, a man as tight as cramp, is about to bankroll some 1980s extravaganza. I fancy they're in for a shock. St Helens, Leeds and Warrington are the clubs in a good position going forward to utilise this ruling to bring in established stars as they either presently do or very shortly will make their own money without outside investment to keep the balance sheet looking rosy.

The game in general is riddled with idiocy. The pretence that clubs going bankrupt is fine, we can deal with it etc - it's laughable.

Not sure if McManus would entertain an Eastmond return, when I spoke to him a few years in Caernarfon he was very critical the way Eastmond and Agent treated the club, and I got the impression it left a mental scar over the affair. In saying that Superleague is very poor these days and good halves are like dragons teeth, I reckon Eastmond would have a good impact once up to League Tempo.