Which one did York beat?

Northumbria. Who beat Loughborough in the previous round if memory serves me right.

No. I suspect geography would restrict both of those from getting hold of many current or ex pro or academy players.

Current possibly but why wouldn't ex-academy or ex-pro players study there, particularly given Loughborough's status in terms of it's sports degrees etc?

Wether they would or wouldn't , teams of kids playing semi pro clubs doesn't work , yes they might get the odd decent result pre season , but from a development point of view and a safety point of view it shouldn't happen

didnt Wigan put 106 past Whitehaven? maybe semi-pro teams arent up to the required standard to play pro teams, maybe from a development and safety point of view it shouldnt happen?

Well it would be stupid to put them in a league situation yes , but in your analogy it was still men against men , just that one lot of men not being as fit as the others

nobody is asking them to be put in a league situation, similarly nobody is asking Uni teams to join the championships. I agree, in a league situation week in week out a Uni team and an U20 team would struggle with the physicality. In a one off game they wont.

Do you have any evidence or any examples of long term injuries being an issue when one off games between Uni sides and semi-pro sides are played?

The OP suggests exactly that they be put in a league situation , as for injuries , no , have you ?

and we agree that U20's would struggle with the physicality, especially in the forwards, which is one of the reasons we should look at feeder clubs rather than U20's with a mix between experienced and young players.


no, i dont which is why i dont think it is an issue.

All I can think of is that you're confusing Universities with Sixth form colleges.

I'm not confusing anything , and trying to do the Smokey tactic of ' water muddying ' wont work either

So why do you keep calling Universities, in which final year students who went straight from A levels will be 21/22, and many other students even older "kids" ?

I agree that using feeder clubs would be a better system than sticking the under 20s into the league system. SL clubs could keep their youth systems in the form that they are now (otherwise they would need 3 or 4 feeder clubs each) and each could either set up a new club in a nearby town or link up with any pre existing club willing to act as a feeder club that would then be used to send the cream of their under 20s on either dual reg or season long loans. For example Wigan could set up a Chorley feeder club, somebody already mentioned a Goole club to feed one of the Hull clubs. If willing clubs like Bramley (with Leeds) or Warrington Wizards (with Wire) (just as examples, not insisting that they should) could link up as feeder clubs and join the leagues. This would then give us a greater number of clubs in the championships whilst not forcing ambitious clubs to act as feeders. By careful selection of towns for feeder clubs we could also use such a system to push out gradually from the M62 corridor both to the north and the south of the 'heartlands' and mean new clubs were still fairly local to their opponents helping to build local rivalry and interest.

iirc we've played warrington & huddersfield 'reserves' in pre season friendlies in recent years...and tanked em' both


just sayin

The issue you have with feeders from existing lower league clubs is that those clubs often have an dislike bordering on hatred for anything involving the "big" club in their area, usually from when the two clubs were rivals and on a similar footing some time in their history.

Trying to convince Hunslet for example that they might want to serve as Leeds feeder club is likely to be met with a two-word answer followed by an anti-semitic expletive.

I'd imagine similar reactions (without the expletive) asking Keighley to do the same with Bradford or Swinton with Salford.

This has got to be the most stupid, insulting idea i have ever heard of in RL!
I am not interested in watching some one elses youth team. I want to see my team playing sides of equal stature and quality. Our crowds at Doncaster may be small athe the moment but we are building a sustainable club and are not in debt, unlike many SL clubs. Mind your own business and get your own house in order is my message to the busy bodies who came up with this!

Who says the U20's won't be of equal stature or quality? I would imagine they'll give a few Championship 1 teams a good run for their money. Are you happy for your team to play London Skolars & Gateshead?

Yes thanks. As regards the U20s safety, have you seen the size of the forwards who play for Workington!

So you're happy to play teams that aren't competitive or equal then. So what's the difference between that and playing U20's?

They are equal as they are open age. Gateshead have done well in the past and the Skolars are progressing all the time. I know you're just using them as an example but not everyone can be top of the league.

I'd agree, I can understand why fans wouldn't be keen on watching their team play an U20's side, but that's not what the poster said. He said he wanted to watch his team play sides of equal stature and quality. Well Gateshead & London Skolars are not of equal stature or quality to the top sides in the league or even to the "middle" sides in the league.

Also, a Doncaster fan taking the mick out of other teams finances is just bizarre.

Regardless of how competative Gateshead are they are club in their own right doing their best and in time will become succesful. Why can't you just leave them alone? I am not interested in this idea, it is only of benefit to SL clubs in helping develop their youth teams.

Ok, i meant they are equal as in age, build etc.

Point taken on finances regarding the old Donny club, but under the new regime we have cut our cloth to suit. Surely this is a course of action which all clubs should take?

That's precisely the reason I suggested that any feeder clubs would be likely to be new clubs set up by (or with the help of) a SL club. The only existing clubs that I could see being interested in becoming feeder clubs are any clubs that under the proposed restructuring (the RFL "4 seasons" one) would struggle to find a league to play in, or would be facing a drop of a few levels in the pyramid. Especially if entering such an agreement would allow them to meet requirements for CC1 (for example if the SL club helped to fund ground improvements). I wouldn't see any merit in forcing the existing CC and CC1 clubs to become feeder clubs against their will or that of their fanbases.