OK then Wellsey, how many spectators turn up (and actually pay) to watch SL club Academy/U20s (whatever it is now) games?

You and your man

What's that got to do with anything? Feeder clubs aren't academy teams.

So what exactly would they be if they aren't the Super League 'parent' wishing to blood the kids?

Exhibit A posted by Wellsey13 on 2nd October:

[i"The dual-registration system only allows for a certain amount of players to be loaned out IIRC. If the entire academy were in a feeder team, then it would help all of their development."[/i

We've moved on from the 2nd October (my name only has one 'e' in it by the way).

Rooster has explained how feeder clubs in Australia work, and that way seems a better proposal.

There are players in the match day squad and there are the youngsters. People seem to forget the players in the middle, and these are the players that are missing out on valuable competitive game time which affects their development. There are plenty of players that come through the academy but aren't ready for the big time (or just simply can't get in). If they stay in stagnation for too long, they end up as another one of the "could have beens".

In that case, send them on a season-long loan to a Championship club without a clause to recall them at a whim.

Or better still Matt , they could dump an overhere pension topper upper and actually play these players IN SL , couldn't they

Far too radical a suggestion while the Sky money is still rolling in.

So then who will the SL club play if one of their players get injured? You've just loaned them all out for the season.

Who will the Championship club play if said player gets recalled? Don't forget that in the case of dual contracts that the wages are paid by the Championship club.

The same players they are playing now.

So Championship clubs will be expected to pay the wages of back-up players, while also paying the wages of on-loan players, whereas Super League clubs only need to pay for their first team and any players they since recall from being on loan? Genius.

And any players not out on loan in the first place. And championship clubs wouldnt need to pay the player who is the reserve now, because the player they are playing now would become the reserve and the player they are loaning the first choice.

Wouldn't be much of a feeder system if there are players who aren't playing for their Super League, nor are they loaned out. And I'm sorry but you really don't watch much Championship rugby if you think all but the very cream of Super League reserve players are better than existing Championship players.

Are you kidding? most of the players playing in the championship were once SL academy players, they were at the lower end of the scale. Of course there will be lots of academy players better than championship players.

In which case you'd like to explain why in pre-season friendlies (the only decent barometer there is) only Wigan U20's that tend to get anything close to beating Championship sides?

And there ain't much cream.

1, that isnt true, Leeds beat Hunslet almost every pre-season with a team of U20's

2, if we wanted a team full of U20's playing a team of U20's we would have an U20's league,

Fair point, though worth mentioning that Hunslet only got promoted last season and hardly set the world on fire. Still talking about a top-end Super League club and a lower end Championship side.


Then increase it to under 23's (as we have in the Championship) or include more over-age players. But then of course there will be the whinging of it being too big a gap between U18's and U23's...

And in the case of feeder clubs, the wages are paid by the parent club as they are part of the squad (thus saving Championship clubs money in what we are often told these cash-strapped times). If a player gets recalled, then in most cases that will then free up another player for the Championship club.
On top of that, you will still have your own squad of players. It just may be smaller than before (which again, we are constantly being told is going to be because of money situations).

It's not really a whinge though, is it? It's a fair and valid point. We don't have the luxury of other sports of having tonnes of quality kids to fill in various different squads below first team (and if we did, we couldn't afford to keep them all).

I suppose that would be a case in point for reducing the number of clubs in Super League but that's another argument for another day.

From a personal point of view, I would much rather have a lower-paid part-time squad where we struggle to chuck money together than I would watch a side reliant on Super League reserve players, and I'm sure I won't be the only person thinking that. I want players who want to play for my club, not ones who give it a fleeting thought because they've been dropped by their Super League side that week (and that applies for the majority of dual contracts by the way).

Quite correct we dont , and this is exactly a reason for us not wanting to become feeder clubs , there is always going to be someone at the bottom of the line who will get ' dropped ' , nobody wants to be the ones having to do that , with feeder clubs all that would be happening is the SL club gets rid of this problem onto the Championship club