your asking SKY to put another 10million into RL over 4 years aint going to happen theres more chance of them reducing the amount for the next contract rather than increasing it.

Im asking Sky to do exactly that

im with littlerich on this one

From the Bernard Guasch interview. Quote Where is the folder "franchise". Will you be ready in 2011? For now, I feel great. The stage arrives, finances and club structures are sound, the director, Christopher Jouffret is the person we needed. I do not see how we will not pursue adventure. It would have collapsed a sporting club. The desire of the English is that the Super League to 15 or 16 clubs.'" www.lindependant.com/articles/20 ... 121167.php So who knows, I've heard the SL wants 12-14-15 and 16 clubs Why they just can't come out and say what they want I'll never know.

From the Bernard Guasch interview. Quote Where is the folder "franchise". Will you be ready in 2011? For now, I feel great. The stage arrives, finances and club structures are sound, the director, Christopher Jouffret is the person we needed. I do not see how we will not pursue adventure. It would have collapsed a sporting club. The desire of the English is that the Super League to 15 or 16 clubs.'" www.lindependant.com/articles/20 ... 121167.php So who knows, I've heard the SL wants 12-14-15 and 16 clubs Why they just can't come out and say what they want I'll never know.

I think Top Gear is on then.

My point is we should be aiming to be on a par with the NRL. But to get there cutting the overseas quota will not help. I personally don't believe that overseas players have stopped young British players breaking into SL. Look at Sam Burgess, Joe Westerman, James Roby, Jamie Peacock. They all broke through no problem. Hell, additional overseas players force younger British guys who want to break in to go that extra mile IMO.

With the reduced quota, what you get is clubs dropping off in terms of player quality. A club may have need of a player they could get a kolpac player or an Aussie to play in who would be 7/10 in terms of quality. But because of the quota they have to use a British player who may be only 4/10 in terms of quality.

So the team has less quality, and therefore the league has less quality. At least, that's my opinion

It is not unrealistic to think that the PL could quite easily tell clubs that no other sports organisation should use their ground.

If that happens, where will Wigan play? Orrell?

Wigan have a long lease (50yrs i think) so wigan football would be stuffed, they'd have to build themselves or Wigan rl a new stadium entirely at their own cost, and i imagine Hull are in an even stronger position as their ground is owned by the council, not either club

But the hope is that in years to come with the extra resources piled into youth development we'll find more of those players.
SL may be a lower quality across the board for a while but i'd rather be watching 80% British than 40%

With the best will in the world, whilst the very best young players will always, like cream, rise to the top of the game, the vast majority of youth players will never become international quality or even professionals. This has nothing to do with imported players and everything to do with them not being good enough. You can throw as much money and other resources into improving them as you wish but they will never ever become stars; the expression about purses and sow's ears springs to mind.

I just can't understand the logic in the argument that if you only give extra coaching and gametime experience to more kids they'll all somehow become first teamers. Only a tiny proportion of kids go on to be pros, and even fewer will ever play for England. The only way to increase the overall number of pro quality players coming off the production line is to significantly increase the numbers coming into it, or to put it another way, to increase the game's footprint by attracting youngsters from areas where they currently have no interest in the game.

Until such time arrives we need the Kolpacs, Aussies, imports or whatever name they are given to provide a solid base level of quality in the league. If they go then we either decide to reduce the number of clubs or accept a reduction in the quality and intensity of rugby played. I'd suggest that neither option is particularly palatable.

Or by attracting them away from other sports. And you're more likely to do that if there's a greater prospect of a career in the game.

That's what I was suggesting.
Investing in new areas.
Is Hicks at Wire really offering 3 times as much as Chris Riley when he's on three times the money? I don't think so and we've got plenty in the same boat

It’s not what Rugby League can do for your team it’s what your team can do for Rugby League. Teams in the Super League need to add to the competitions value in some way at the moment there are a number of teams contributing very little.

Honestly if some people think the RFL is going to drop an expansion team to keep/put their team in the league then they are kidding themselves. Extra money in the previous TV deal was likely to have been given on certain promises. One of these would have most likely been the spread of the game geographically.

Unless Crusaders, Quins or Catalan have serious financial problems then they will always have a place in the league.

I can not see the RFL reducing the number of teams in the league to 12 as they would have to drop three existing teams. That would result in a lot of crying and moaning from the three teams and undo the work they had done over the previous three years.

I think that the existing 14 teams deserve a chance to continue the work they have done to produce young player, improve facilities, and attract larger crowds. If the weaker are still in a similar position in 2014 then they have had their chance and should go.

As for increasing the league to 16, Well that is all down to money and the quality of teams that would come in. I imagine if Toulouse are ready to come into the league there is a bigger chance of this. But I think the drop in quality would be too much.

So I vote for keeping the league at 14.

That's a very sensible post although I'd rather see much more emphasis on junior development than the stadium.
While I agree it's massively important in the Sky verdicts junior development seemed hugely underplayed with teams (including my own) getting a tick for next to nothing. In those two years we've gone from about 9 or 10 overseas players to 19 British players in the squad. I personally think it's getting there especially with teams like Cas, us, wakey and Quins, and that we should keep along the same path until at least the license period after

The biggest problem to attracting kids to the game is the dominance of soccer. If only newspapers were full of RL trivia and news, and our players were the big name stars that virtually everyone can both recognise and name instead soccer players it would increase the chances hundred fold. Sadly, we can only play the cards we've been dealt and soccer is the game that [ievery[/i boy plays at some time in their lives and RL, in the main, only if they live in very defined areas.

It often means that when someone in their mid-teens decides that soccer, perhaps isn't their best sport and they fancy a change, they're way behind everyone else and badly lacking in the basic skills. Occasionally some latecomers do come through though, so yes, if they show promise they should be encouraged but ideally it is better to attract them as young as possible. To be honest I'm not really a believer in youngsters devoting themselves to just one sport, I certainly never did, but soccer, unsurprisingly given its influence and the rewards on offer, really does seem to hoover up the boys looking to play sport in this country.

Good common sense.

The wider the spread of SL clubs the bigger potential audience for Sky and the more they can charge advertisers. It also has many knock on benefits for the league, like a higher national profile and a greater chance of attracting and keeping players and investors from a much wider area.

the cream does rise to the top, so we need more cream. We get that by stopping clubs taking the easy way out and forcing them to invest more in training and scouting youth players


its not a case of just giving the current youngsters more training and gametime (though this will help) its about better training for more players


there will always be a time where the replacement of overseas players by young british players reduces the quality and intensity. Replacing large amounts of experienced pros with kids will always do that. So why not get it over with, we can then look at improving, and that improvement will have more british players

Exactly!
Again though, I don't necessarily agree with how you'd personally go about it

I would question that for 50% of the overseas players that come in tbh. There are a lot of overseas players plying their trade in SL that are very average and if we really don;t have enough talent to replace these average players then we should give it up now! Most teams have 2-3 overseas players that would fit into that category imo.

As with any CHANGE, there will be pain. Look at Quins RL......2 quota spots available and basement rugby on the cards but at least some young English guys will get a chance to improve over the season....
Rome wasn't built in a day and all that.

Who is the leaseholder of the DW stadium. Wigan RL are likely to lose out in any power battle with a PL club. Although Latics are small fry in terms of football club, they are a financial monster compred to Wigan RL. If the rules of business apply, Wigan RL will be the loser. Wigan RL are small fry.

I have had a git feeling for quite a while that the PL will tell clubs they cannot groundshare.

like most stadiums it is owned by a stadium company, but cutting through all that it is owned by Wigan athletics owner, dave Whelan, but that's irrelevant as they have a long term lease and on top of that the stadium was only given planning permission if it would be used for both sports. Wigan RL are in a stronger position than Wigan athletic

Apart from any issues re the ptich why would the PL give a hoot who else uses a stadium? Not like we are a threat to them.

There have been rumblings from various people in football about the state of pitches at Hull and Wigan (IMO the two worst grounds in the PL - but that's another issue). The pitches are a state and reduces the quality of the game for those who are paying good money to watch.





Wigan RL are in a stronger position? How? You pick up a few quid from SL every year. Latics get £20m.

I am mnerely playing Devil's Advocate. Unless you know the full details of the contract and are a lawyer specialising in this area, you cannot say with certainty what would happen.

In these circumstances, more often than not teh bigger enterprise wins i.e. Latics.