Each to their own.

Wish they were showing the internationals, is there anywhere online you can see them?

Maybe this is a blessing in disguise.
We can now start to develope our youth into top super league or international players who have been held back in the past by over rated, over aged and over paid imports from Australia.
Dont forget Sam Thompkins only got his chance when Tim Smith got injured.
The youngsters might thrive without the pressure of having to preform on the odd chance they get and wont have to be loaned out to championship clubs just so they get a game.
Untill the powers that be bring our game into the 20th century and stop messing about with our game we need to keep the salery cap as it is otherwise we will see a lot more clubs doing a Bradford, Salford, Widnes, Wakefield, Castleford, Crusaders, Paris, Toulouse and maybe a few more that might follow them.

Who?

Good, as by and large we never got much to the dollar.

.
Nah. Anyone who is capable of looking at things fairly would agree that - after a long gap - SL does seem to be able to produce the odd world-class talent again. And they will always go where the money is biggest, in any sport.


Nah. If the NRL is the gold standard comp and Tomkins wants to play in it the he will go, whatever the RFL do. If the SL was the pinnacle then maybe but for now that isn't close.


SL: "Dear Sky, we want the same money but we will have 30% less clubs and games so each gets a bigger slice. Is that OK with you?

Sky: "Yes, fine, in fact just scrap the league, we will triple the Sky money and just televise the GF".


Really? I bet they never thought of that. You should ring them.




More like the SL clubs have more sense than to splurge $1m on a failed Aussie RU player whose stock is low and can't get a pricey gig in the NRL so has his agent madly phoning anyone he knows in England. If you want the manual on why you don't break the bank to lure back RU mercenaries, ask Bradford, quote ref: Harris,I. If Toulouse have the cash, why don't they sign him?

I don’t get why people insist on this logic that pretends the best players not playing in SL is somehow a good thing. It makes no sense. The fact SL club are bringing in fewer overseas players is a good thing, the fact the ones they are bringing over are a lower quality isn’t. The fact SL clubs aren’t spending so much on overseas players and putting more faith in a youth is a good thing, the fact the best of these are going to Australia isn’t.

There is no positive to the fact the best RL players in the world don’t play in SL, and SL clubs cannot compete for them. I have no idea why, usually reasonably intelligent posters are so wedded to this form of cap as if any other would immediately spell disaster for the game. As if money is the only valid barometer of quality, as if it is better for SL that Leeds go out and bring in a Mitch Achurch, or Wigan go out and get and Anthony Gelling than a Israel Folau or Tony Williams.

It really is as if some were so scared by Wigans success in the 90’s they are terrified of any change and blinded to the limitations and negatives of the SC.

Surely there is a better balance, surely we can have an SC which keeps a lid on wages and stops a club buying all players but still allows us to compete for the best Rugby players in the world.

It's not a good thing Smokey, but it's not as disastrously bad as some might make out.

Folau is a former Aussie RL player who went for the money to the AFL, Folau is the youngest kangaroo ever and is a world class athlete and he will sign a big money deal with Parramatta

It is pretty bad. It affects everything throughout the game. How is the game in this country going to be all it can be when it goes out to recruit the cheapest, not the best and it does this for no discernible reason beyond fear and lack of imagination.

Do you actually believe SL goes out to recruit the cheapest players, and does that for "no iscernible reason beyond fear and lack of imagination" ?

Too a point, it clearly does.

And no, I don’t think it does it ‘for no discernible reason other than fear and lack of imagination’ I think it does it because of greed and a lack of imagination and sells it through fear.

How can you believe it when it clearly isn't true. There are plenty of players out there significantly cheaper than those currently in and being recruited by SL teams.

Where? Where are these cheaper full time pros?

In the SL and Championship academies and in the RFL scholarship programme.

No, those are youth players.

I mean yeah, it would be cheaper for us to sack our full time pro’s and replace them with Academy and Scholarship players and that would mean that we werent taking the 'cheapest' option but I think we would be stretching the description of a fully pro league somewhat if we were to do so.

Adults at 19 or 20 years old are not youth players.
Beyond those, there are still a lot of options far cheaper than bringing in Australians.

I haven't worked out yet whether you argue points you don't believe yourself, or just don't think them through fully (and whether that's a conscious decision not to or not) but have realised of course that this is where our discussions become pointless.

And if they were SL level players then at 19/20 then they would be playing SL and demanding a wage congruent with being an SL player, and that doesnt address the fact that it costs to bring players through, academy coaches, facilities etc etc.

But what are these pools of talent that are significantly cheaper for us, and why aren’t they being used now?

You can also explain why the likes of Travis Burns, Mitch Achurch, Anthony Gelling and ageing Kylie Leuluai etc are plying their trade in this country next year when the likes of Scott Prince, Gerard Beale, Ben Te’o, Tony Williams, Sonny Bill Williams, Krisnan Inu, Sam Perrett, Sam Kasiano, Michael Jennings, Junior Sau, Dave Taylor were all available this year, if not cost?

You have just listed pools of talent that are significantly cheaper than the Australians you also listed. Do you not see this, or choose not to see it?

In answer to second question, it's because the SL clubs see your first batch as providing better value than the second batch.

It's not because SL "goes out to recruit the cheapest" because they clearly are not the cheapest players.

I dont see it because it doesnt exist. The only other pool of talent I mentioned was 19/20 year old SL academy players, who arent playing 1st team now. I then explained why they arent 'significantly cheaper' than what we are currently importing. Do you not see this or choose not to see it?

So you know for a fact that Gary Hetherington signed Mitch Achurch over SBW because he felt that Achurch offered more value for money not because he was cheaper? Especially considering GH has been pretty public in the fact that he would like to sign a quality NRL player but the changing landscape of the SC, f/X and quota means he cant.

It clearly does exist. The fact that they aren't playing first team right now does not mean they don't qualify as recreuiment options for SL clubs. I'm hardly proposing they sign you and I to play.

I can find you a bunch of 20 year olds that would play for free. They would cost any SL club nothing at all.



Yes, unless GH is an idiot (which the success of the Leeds club would suggest he isn't) he has signed Mitch Achurch instead of SBW because Achurch is better value or brings better ROI or however you want to phrase it.

Do you really seriously believe those players were the cheapest possible option for their clubs to sign? Cheaper than 20 year old ex academy players? Cheaper than taking players from Championship clubs? Cheaper than taking rather than releasing their own academy graduates? Cheaper than taking the top amateur players?

Been reading the Aussie press about Folau, in short it seems that if he comes back to NRL then he only wants to go to Parramatta, for personal reasons, and they can't offer him megabucks for the obvious reason they haven't got a multimillion gaping hole in their 2013 recruitment. They could offer him a contract with "jam tomorrow", but then would be committed even if he didn't regain his former glories.

Also the press say he might go to Union as another option, but quite apart from finances it seems clear that a move to SL isn't even on his radar so the discussion is a waste of time, neither Hetherington nor anyone else has a chance whatever they offer. Proof? Even if an SL team had the money, if it was about the money, he would have stayed out his multi-million contract in the AFL, no RL club is going to be able to come close to matching that in 2013, NRL clubs included.

Though as i explained, that if a 19/20 year old was playing SL their pay would be congruent with an SL player, not the amount they are earning as a youth team player. It was very quick between Stevie Ward playing in a few first team matches, and him being offered a brand new contract with accompanying pay rise, this along with the fact that Stevie Ward has been costing Leeds money for the last 3 years means it isnt cheaper for Leeds to go out, scout, pay, coach, blood, and then pay an SL wage to Stevie Ward, than it is for them to go out and simply sign Mitch Achurch.

We could give a chimp a stethoscope, it doesnt make him a doctor. You can put a bunch of 20 year olds on a pitch, christ you could probably find a fair few 60 year olds who would be willing, but that doesnt make them fully professional rugby league players.

Why? Its perfectly conceivable that the value SBW offers is way above that of Achurch. It is perfectly conceivable that Leeds would get a better on field contribution, as well as a better contribution in terms of merchandising, ticket sales etc, from SBW than from Achurch. It is perfectly conceivable that SBW is worth what Leeds would need to pay to get him. It is perfectly conceivable that Mitch Achurch wont be. It is, quite clearly, perfectly conceivable that SBW, like Ali Lauitiiti before him, would be remembered as a bargain, regardless of the fact his wages were high. It is perfectly conceivable that Mitch Achurch, like Ben Cross before him, will be remembered as a waste of money, despite his low wage. Why is it inconceivable to you that GH signed Mitch Achurch, not because he gives a better ROI, not because he offers better value, but simply because a cap we have on salaries, has capped the salary to such an extent that Leeds cannot compete for SBW?
No, but I did say that posts back. As i said, to a point, SL clubs take the cheapest option. That point being when we start bounding in to the ridiculous of pretending that we could have a league full of amateurs, semi-pros, and youth team players and pretending it was a fully pro league. Yes, there is a possibility that there a people who would take lower wages, and that doesnt make them SL players.
regardless of that, My argument wasnt that we shouldnt be blooding youth players, we should, there is no bigger supporter for more investment in our youth development than me. My argument was that we should be competing for a better standard of overseas players instead of the likes of Achurch, you know, the players who are coming over. Bringing over Tony Williams or SBW instead of Achurch doesnt mean fewer youngsters get a game, and bringing over Achurch instead of Tony Williams or SBW doesnt mean any more youngsters are going to get a game. Youngsters, Championship players, amateur players are irrelevant in this context, because they arent filling the gaps, Achurch is and it would be better if a better quality of player was filling that gap/

What about player x who was released from the academy who could have been quite prepared to play for £100 a week? What about player y who was released from someone else's academy who was prepared to play for Leeds for £100 a week?


and if I had suggested picking out pet dogs and cats, you would have a point there. However I have only suggested rugby league players. So whilst you can't put stethoscope on a chimp and call him a doctor, you can put a stethoscope on a medical student and a year later call him a doctor.


It's conceivable, but considering GH's success, it's most likely he's picked the option that will provide the best ROI/value. Whether he was cheaper or not was never in question.



I'd suspect what would be more likely to happen, and as seen in the past, is we actually end up with Achurch and someone else, and our younger players not playing.

Your statement was that "goes out to recruit the cheapest" which as we hae clearly seen is not the case. Again, this is where discussions fall down with you. I'm sure you really don't actually believe that statement yourself, but you will keep arguing it, and back yourself into such a corner, we can't go anywhere else.

The Mitch Achurch signing probably isn't a good example to use, as contrary to common belief, he ain't on a relatively low wage.
Penrith were keen to keep him, but couldn't compete with the 'massive money' (Gus Goulds words) from Leeds. There were a couple of other NRL clubs chasing Mitch who were also priced out of the market.
Love the 'I want to put myself in the shop window to play for England' marketing spin though.

Mitch Achurch is a fringe NRL player that nearly quit league last year.
He has played about a dozen first grade games at 24 years of age.
If he is on big money at Leeds he has done really well for himself.

He has a big wrap on himself or he does not rate the England side that high.

[i"I think the Super League competition will suit my natural game and I am excited about coming over to England for the next four years at least but hopefully longer.
"My first focus is coming over and doing my best for Leeds Rhinos but obviously with my heritage that would make me available for England and the World Cup next year"
[/i

[:tvzj54dy
factually: he isn’t a professional Rugby League player. :tvzj54dyYou don’t get to become a Dr by simply completing a years work experience as a doctor. You have to reach, and prove, a certain level of competence. Which is why, try as you might, SL academy players, Championship players and amateur players aren’t professional rugby league players.
:tvzj54dyWhy? Where on earth is your logic in that conclusion? If the SC has put SBW beyond reach it doesn’t matter a jot what ROI/Value he offers, he could be the bargain of the century, he could give an ROI/Value many times greater than Achurch, we still cant bring him in, the SC has meant the question isn’t Who offers the best ROI/Valu SBW/Achurch, its well we cant buy SBW, should be buy Achurch. You are inventing a situation where SBW was a choice that was rejected when the SC meant he wasn’t ever an option.
:tvzj54dyOur young players do play, our Back Line will likely be Hardaker, BJB, Watkins, Ablett, Hall. Ablett is the oldest at 26. Our first team squad also includes, Hood, McShane, Clarkson, Ward, Keinhorst, Briscoe and Singleton.
No, I have been quite clear, that we recruit the cheapest to a point. That point being when you start being ridiculous and pretending a league full of youth players, Lower league players, and amateurs on £100 per week could realistically describe itself as a fully pro league.