Still no one thinking it's a bit odd that Swinton would sign someone and then not even half way into the season loan out someone that's played for them, as far as I know, every week?

So the players have signed for Swinton, without a transfer fee, have contracts with Swinton, and therefore I assume Swinton pay their wages too (hence they aren't counted against the salary cap). I a right to say that it's only a 'gentlemans agreement' that keeps them linked with Warrington, and if Swinton wanted to sell them on they are free to do so?

All IMO;

These players would not have got a game this year at Wire as they are 'over age'. By going to Swinton it helps both parties out, they get some decent young talent and the players get a higher standard of competition to prove themselves. They are contracted to Swinton for 1 year (most players in the Champ. only have a 1 year contract), after which they are technically free agents, so no, Swinton could not sell them on. And yes, there is an unwritten agreement here, based on the understanding that the new age groups has been a 'less than sensible' decision made by the SL chairmen, engineered by Hetherington, ably assisted by Lenagan. This is an attempt to paper over the cracks until the new arrangements are agreed for 2014.

No Dwyer is still a warrington player and played for swinton under dual reg.

The 7 swinton players are burke, shaw, medieka, bridge ,morrison, ormsby, riley. They all have swinton squad numbers and appear in the program each week.

Life in the championship is VERY different to superleague. If a player gets an offer of a trial/ loan at a super league club then they are unlikely to stand in their way. They no doubt have a contract clause. Also transfer fees are rare and undermimes any attempts to develop players.

All the seven will.become free agents in sept and can sign for who they like. If a gentlemans agreement exists it would be between the player and.Warrington.

Swinton have just signed Craig Harvey (ex warrington) at stand off. If he plays then Mendieka would likely be out.

That'll be the second, too old for the u19s, ex-Warrington Academy player in a week looking to get their way back into professional rugby league signing for Swinton - strange that.

Well I find it all unnecessarily baffling, and TS seemed to be quite clearly indicating that Wires would have first dibs on Mendeika and anyone else on dual reg that had proven themselves SL quality.

I wouldn't be suprised if the bedrock for the arrangement with Swinton is gentlemen's agreements, discreet words in the right ears and token nods to the actual process, whatever that is.

Is he the one who went off to be an oil oligarch?

He sure is

So, if say a club with deep pockets, a new manager and an ambitious owner, made Swinton a tempting offer for any/all of these players (any of who could perhaps be the "next" Chris Hill / Zak Hardaker), then surely the limit of a "gentlemans agreement" would be sorely tested ?

You'd think the contracts will contain provisions to stop that from happening.

Am I the only one laughing at the way Wire are taking the P out of the discredited RFL because you did not want the farce that is 'Twinning' - good on you and keep it up, our governing body are a laughing stock.

And now I admit I am confused - I have looked back at your matchday squads and found no mention of danny Bridge (who has played regularly for Swinton). Initially I thought you were mistaken but have now noticed that your "19" for Keighley on this forum and the Wolves website has disappeared! ("curiouser and curiouser"icon_wink.gif

Must admit I thought I had read it and it did include Danny Bridge who I understand is contracted to Swinton, and on this forum there are a number of comments that he may get his debut.

Maybe there is a limit at the RFL as to how far these rules can be pushed!


Alternatively, following a drubbing from Toulouse we have no game so feel free to loan as many as you need.

The 19 for Keighley isn't named until Friday at 2pm? The 19 named for the Wakefield game is still on the website if that is what you mean?

Credit where it is due- Red Hall didn't want this any more than Warrington, the blame lies solely with the 12 clubs who voted to bring it in.

Why don't we just buy everyone and loan them all out to all the SL and Championship clubs ffs

Wire are not "taking the P out of the RFL". What they are doing is working within the parameters they have to work in to do the best for the club and for the players involved as far as developing them into Super League players of the future.

I think if anyone is having the P taken out of them, it's the clubs in the championship. They are losing their identify, stability, sense of purpose, fanbase and with no discernible benefit. The argument that, for example, attendances at Swinton, may increase modestly as a result of the opportunity to see a team (in theory) more likely to win, sprinkled with upcoming and experienced SL talent has proven predictably hollow.

Clubs like Swinton find themselves between a rock and a hard place, financially it must work out well for them being in a partnership, but at what cost. Their fans have been moved from pillar to post over the years and it seems the new ground will never materialise. It is now clear what Tony Smith meant when he told Paul Rowley that Leigh were "too ambitious" for them to be partnered with Warrington.

I really feel for clubs like Featherstone who have ambition and want to retain their independence as a club. The system used this year has made a complete mockery of the Championship and discredited what is a great competition. I know a lot of Championship fans and they are completely fed up and disillusioned.

Just to muddy the waters a little bit more why would Swinton now loan Glen Riley to Warrington as he is in Warrington's 19 man squad for this week. Loans are for a minimum of 1 month so why would Swinton do without one of their better players for a month? This is getting so out of hand.

Because Swinton have no say in the matter.

This all gives me a headache.

Just bring in Peacocks suggestion and sky can give a bit more to SL2, bring in yearly loans so if you want to fill a championship club with your academy players you do it on a year basis with no recall options.

I've not necessarily got a problem with the concept of a partner club, it could be beneficial for both parties.

The problem seems to be that the limit on player movement is entirely one-way, is either vague, open to abuse, or full of loopholes and the contract situation appears, shall we say, ambiguous at best. The result is SL clubs are using Championship clubs as little more than an A Team, decent, local lads who are trying to earn a part-time living in the game are being pushed from pillar to post and supporters who want to pay to see their team, as opposed to players who are wearing a jersey of convenience, are being represented by strangers and are disenfranchised as a result.

As with many things in RL, irrespective of whether it's a good or bad idea, the problems have been compounded by it being badly implemented, badly communicated, badly enforced and badly planned.