having some sort of duel contracts between union and league ?
imagine Ugo Monye trying to keep his fitness up by playing for Quins RL as well as Quins RU. Couldn't see the harm especially in Quins case they need all the help they can get.

Better still have a 10 mile rule, anyone born within 10 miles of the team they play for is exempt from the cap or at least on a different beneficial rate

did'nt liam botham have a dual contract @ leeds?

One player maybe yest if they were an international, but definitely not every player signed

Quote ="pyeman"Could you give us some more info about this point system smokey? thanks in advance.'" www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... 10l50.html

Quote ="pyeman"Could you give us some more info about this point system smokey? thanks in advance.'" www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/leag ... 10l50.html

A percentage of salary (e.g. max 50% exempted from the cap) and max of one player per club.

At Leeds it almost certainly wouldn't work anyway, as Hetherington has imposed a wage structure which means a fair few players are on less than they could earn elsewhere. Bringing in a very highly paid union convert into that mix would destroy the very team spirit that has helped push Leeds to where they are.

To answer the original Poster....NO!

What this does raise is the pi55 poor state to out RL Development programme across the UK. 14 SL teams, with one based in France means that (at 27 men squads) we can't find 351 players good enough to play Rugby League from the UK. Take into account that at present, and not counting Hull Kingston Australians most clubs have 5 overseas players then that number comes down to 299.
What is being proposed here is that we can't find 350 odd players in the UK without having to go overseas or pinch someone from another code


If you remove Quins from the equation, then this number comes down to 324!

The Population of the cities, towns and villages along the M62 must be about 6 million people and what we are saying here is that a sport with over 100 years of heritage and tradition can't fins 324 players good enough to play in Superleague? WTF?

If someone WANTS to play League, let them come on the wages on offer. Look at what is happening to Wendyball? ALL the clubs lose money and some of the bigger ones are in real trouble. Do we want RL to go down this route? The cap is working and in time, the expansion of the game will help the development of players, but some people want it all and they want it now.

The RFL have a plan. Just because we don't agree with parts of it doesn't mean we should abandon it. Rugby League fans do seem to spend a little too much time worrying about what other codes are up to rather than worrying about the long term future of the game.

So no. If a player can't be tempted to League on the salary on offer, let them stay with Union. Stop trying to score points against Union. We have the better product, we have more skillful players and we have a growing audience........union will always try to cherry pick players, but so be it. As I always tell my Union loving mates......yes, England did win the RWC in 2003, but you would never have done it without a league defensive coach and a league try scorer

But what you're not taking into account is one little word "football". That's what we have to compete against in order to get kids playing our sport. Along the M62 you've got Bolton, Blackburn, Man Utd, Man City, Liverpool, Everton, Wigan, Blackpool, all Premiership clubs, though I give you the last two may not be much longer, but still there's the lure of the glamour of the premiership footballer lifestyle. What the best SL players earn in a year is what some of these footballers make in a week. That's the main reason we struggle to find the numbers of quality athletes to play our sport

so, we should be paying players £250,000 a week then eh........


as I say...6,000,000 people, 350 players......sod wendyball and Union....and cricket and anything else. Concentrate on our own development, get our own house in order and then look at nicking union players if they are really good.
I repeat....350 players out of a 6,000,000 catchment area that is rich in the heritage of RL.

But also one that has 15/16 semi pro clubs that are being discouraged from trying to develop players due to stupid unneccessary rules brought in by the RFL

I thought that particular calumny had been knocked on the head when your own source, Leigh chief executive Allan Rowley, was finally quoted on your [url=http://viewtopic.php?p=15446399#p15446399thread[/url on the subject.

Hi exact words were ""We are now told that we can run a scholarship providing we run an under 18s team in addition to a reserve team," but you've decided not to, on the grounds of cost.

I think it takes a particularly twisted view of reality to regard a requirement that scholarship players have somewhere to continue their development when they hit 16 as 'stupid unnecessary rules'.

To be fair, it is an unnecessary restriction. Why would we want to make it more difficult for any club to contribute to player development at a level they can sustain? If Leigh can't afford to run under 18's what is gained by preventing them from running a scholarship?

I have to disagree.

If you're going to run junior development, it's the right and duty of the sport's governing body to make sure there's a proper development pathway in place and scholarship players (ie under-16s) aren't just abandoned with nowhere to go when they hit 16 because a club hasn't the resources or ambition to run the full range of junior development.

Far from unnecessary, I'd say it's essential.

Sorry, but the more I think about it, the more it annoys me! 350 top grade players from a catchment area with a population of 6,000,000 people


How hard can it be? Why the need for overseas players at all?
Get the coaching and development wok right and within 10 to 15 years I would limit it to 1 overseas player and 5 NOT trained by your clubs academy. Wales, France etc get a bit longer, but as quins have shown, it can be done. Wigan, Saints, Leeds, Wakey, Widnes etc all have decent kids coming through....isn't that the point of the junior set ups?

But those players will sign up knowing that there are limitations on how far they can go at that club, if that suits those players, then what is the problem? If Leigh don't offer a scholarship it is by no means certain that all the players who would have signed up will go to other clubs, this is unnecessarily risking losing players to the game.

Hey, don't forget Hull KR, our under 18's are coming along very nicely thank you very much!

None of this prevents Leigh coaching junior players. The rules just say they can't call their scheme an RFL accredited scholarship because they don't meet the criteria for accreditation.

Surely you agree there should be criteria? And that if our junior structure is to be a "performance pathway" that the pathway doesn't have unnecessary dead-ends.

Quite right tb, if a Championship club with Super League aspirations can't see that that is a serious hinderance then in my opinion that club isn't fit to run a Scholarship programme or any kind of player development programme as they obviously don't understand the basics of player development pathways etc.


Yeah because 13 year old rugby league players are noted for their intelligence and forward thinking.

I imagine that their parents may have some input, sufficient to perhaps weigh up the pros and cons of signing up with the local club (and a limited development path, at that club) or a club further away with a pathway right through to the first team (in theory).

How many 13 year olds on scholarships actually make it all the way through to first team rugby for the club they sign onto the scholarship programme with?

I don't see why this is a dead end. The good players (that want to continue their development) will be signed up at clubs that run under 18's the not so good ones won't, in any event all will have gained from the availability of another scholarship programme.

Or perhaps Leigh can do this:

Who?

Or is it just to support the current salary cap debate going on over in the nrl.

It appears the RFL took the stance that Leigh wouldn't comply with the minimum standards surrounding the LTPD model.

As for the salary cap exemption debate - personally I think that 1 per team, 50% of wage exempt from the salary cap would be a good way to go. But would have to be first pro RL contract to stop any shenanigans that would doubtless ensue otherwise.
I think it would encourage teams to go for Union players who sadly are more well known in the media than our own players. I don't think there would be much "damage" to youth development since it would be giving the game a higher profile.

There seems to be two schools of thought on the salary cap:

1. Its there to stifle clubs in order to make an even competetion and allow poor clubs to compete with the well off, thus essentially penalising said big clubs. Folk with this opinion constantly look for ways around the cap, examptions, or just things to blame on it.

2. (and this is mine) If there wasn't a salary cap then the combination of running a sports club as a successful business with the general lack of money in sport would mean, sooner or later (probably), every club would end up oversreached financially and looking at insolvency, thus causing an awful lot more damage to the sport than losing Chris Ashton to RU.

quade cooper.