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.

bingo.

i would include myself in a 3rd school of thought, whilst i understand the necessary regulations needed to protect the league and its clubs and to grow and expand the sport, THIS cap in its current form simply doesnt work, wont work and is counter productive, The NRL are seeing this now. A more transparent and flexible approach is needed to best serve the game

The problem is that 'flexibility' is normally a byword for 'no rules at all'. As with quota rules. Once you start down the path of exemptions for one thing, its hard to argue against others - until you end up with a set of rules in name only.

ot their boards on this site where less posters than the quins board bother to turn up......might be something to do with the myopic stance of one or two regulars on that board....though I might be wrong.........though I doubt it

As regards kids develpment would it be possible to set up fictious(as of yet) youth teams, run by the Rfl partly funded by all clubs. These kids would then be trained up by top coaches with no professional affiliation to any of the clubs. Then when they reach an age they go into a draft system similar to NFL. Call it a school of rugby if you will, and all the best candidates get a 'work' placement. Kids stay with this rugby school until they are 18. Surely a better way of keeping the kids in the game ?

it has been, and that is disappointing.

But as i said, i cant see how the system currently proposed in Aus isnt much much better than what we have now

two problems with this,

1) many many players make their first team debut before 18

2) i believe competition in youth development drives innovation and evolution

I,d forgot I,d even posted on this thread

As you have posted bill , yes some of the lads who have gone through our scholarship are now at other clubs , playing 18 s , reserves and including some on f t contracts

Apparently yes we are now going to continue with some form of junior coaching but not an accredited scholarship

Personally any extra coaching done by pro clubs should be encouraged

1) 18 is only an upper limit, they could be up for draft at 16

2) you still have competiton, you go into a team based on where you were born , you have pre set areas (similar to town teams or schools boundaries you already have), with strict boundaries, these teams then play each other, this is also the basis of how players get picked, you could have 6 age groups 11's 12's 13's 14's 15's and 16-18.

When they turn 16 they are eligable for draft, the bottom clubs getting 1st pick.

16 year olds arent going to move from Castleford to Wrexham for an academy contract.

There is also no benefit from to these RFL youth teams to innovate and take risks. It changes the emphasis of the competition from providing the players for the top level, to being the best youth team. An academy coaches job right now is to provide the best players for its full team not to create the best youth team

How about in general having a 'Designated Player Rule' which MLS uses. That way, up to 2 players can be signed to clubs outside the salary cap - so long as they are paid below a certain level?