Tino

Johns was a 'one off'. There is a big difference in taking one player for a season, and taking 5 DR's and possibly other loan players as well.

I can understand your point here, and it is sometimes difficult for the SL supporter to recognise the problems that you have in the Championship. It must be difficult to build income streams and develop players, so fair point.

correct

As I put , Swinton are unique in that they are currently ' nomads ' attempting to keep a ' name ' alive , so I do have considerable sympathy for them


However this system , now it is available will be abused , and it will damage the credibilty of the competition for all the clubs in it , even those who are not twinned

According to Gareth Walker (League Express Championship correspondent this morning-



This has left me even more bewildered as to what the hell is going on, but it would seem that the above are no longer Warrington players. Who is paying their wages/fees, how long they are contracted for and whether Warrington have first dibs to sign them back I do not know. It would seem the only way they will be able to play for Warrington would be a (minimum) one month loan from Swinton.

What an absolute mess.

Does he mean that they are on season-long loans instead of DR'ed? I thought that was what had happened and they are still our players, as I cannot see us simply letting so many talented young players go.

I may be wrong, but my understanding is that the afore mentioned lads are now registered with the RFL as Swinton players. This means that the only way they could play for us would be for us to loan them from Swinton for a minimum period of a month. I think this has been done to get around the limit of five dual registered lads being allowed to play at one time.

I could however be completely wrong. I am trying to seek clarification, will let you know.

Tis would be completely mad. I know Ormsby only signed his new deal at the end of last season and Mendieka had a great game on Boxing Day. I hope this is confirmation of season long loans.

Just spoken to Walker, the above players (plus Burke) have signed for Swinton, on one year contracts.

Perhaps we have first option on them if they cut it at open age level?

I imagine their will be a few clauses like that in their contract.

Thinking this over, and if the Wire players have actually signed for Swinton, then my personal view is that Wire have stuck two fingers up at the current system;

We know they have spent a lot of time and money developing a strong youth system, and we know they were dead against theses changes. At the start of the season we had approximately 10 over-age players ( not eligible for the U19's ). With only 5 available DR places available at Swinton, this would mean that this group were never going to get a game each week. No doubt Hetherington would have been delighted to see them released, and lost to Wire. So they have stayed within the rules by moving them to a one year contract with Swinton, and presumably as suggested above, they will return to Wire either via a contract clause, or their own free will at the end of the season.

It's clear Wire have not abandoned their youth development policy and are determined to hold onto their youth system. From what I can see, we have 27 U19 players on the books as well. That must surely be the largest contingent I can recall. Unless someone knows better ? Walter ?

With new money coming into the game, lets hope the SL clubs decide to reverse some of these changes and invest money into their youth development once again.

I think that is the case, if not we have inadvertently highlighted what many of us have been saying for a long time- the system is flawed and has more holes than a sieve.

With regards to your last point, my fear is that if we once again move the goalposts young lads (and their parents!) will become fed up and look elsewhere, namely the 15 man code.

There is an article on sportinglife with the title " Wolves to extend winning run " . A few lines into the article it states that all Warrington players are dual registered with Swinton .

Except the 5 that have left wire to sign for swinton. They have circumvented the rules and both clubs should be hauled up in front of the rfl. This now allows wire 10th places inthe swinton side. No way have they let those players go. It might look that way on paper though. DR the whole squad is fine as only 5 are allowed to play. But now we see fake transfers happening to turn the lions into wire reserves.

Barney your comments re relegation are amusing as the only reason your chairman is playing this game is to avoid relegation.

I'm glad Wire have done this, we are constantly being told by the RFL that we are the best run club in SL and the model for everyone to follow, we were vehemently opposed to this idea so thought ok, F U and stuck two fingers up to them, good, it was a silly system they brought in in the first place.

If Warrington and Swinton have broken the rules they should be hauled in front of the RFL, I agree. If not, they shouldn't. What rules have they broken? I'm genuinely asking because I don't know.

How have the rules been broken?

Warrington didn't want the old Academy/ U21s system to cease and are just finding other ways to retain and develop young talent.

They should be applauded for investing in the game.

Exactly; Warrington are using the system to allow nine or so young players to remain in a full-time environment until they have fully developed as players.

You are missing the point here. Wire are against these changes, and what they have done 'drives a coach and horses' through the 'rules' of the new system. They are pointing out that it is not only badly thought through, but ineptly managed. No firm rules have appeared, and the new system has stumbled from one problem to the next. The last issue correctly pointed out was that SL players will cause CC salary cap to be exceeded; so they introduced notional salary values for them. But there are plenty of other issues on the horizon. How about Hunslet Hawks finishing bottom and getting relegated ( Hetherington would love that). Or the grand final between Swinton with 9 Wire players vs Fev with no DR 's ?. Or the Challenge cup draw of Wire vs Swinton.

All IMO though.

i've just skim read it.


Have we played a blinder here for our own benefit?

I'm baffled - the only thing that is of no suprise is the RL appear to have made an unholy mess of things. I assume, and sincerely hope, that if the players have signed 1-year deals then we have an option to bring them back after that. However, I confess to be mystified by the "rules", such as they are, and they certainly seem open to errm misinterpretation.

Mendieka in particular was a player the club seemed to have high hopes for, his potential appeared to be confirmed by a strong showing on boxing day so I hope it's just a case of a one year loan dressed up to satisfy/circumvent (depending on your views) the rules.

You can't blame Wire for doing it. If they can afford to why not?

It's probably against the spirit of the game, but not against the rules (whatever they are).

This notional salary cap value sounds very interesting though, I wonder who "makes up" those figures?

of the game , but have ripped a huge hole in the credibility of semi Pro RL

So lets not see any more criticism of W1g4n and their ' deffered ' contract payments , this is alongside that as an abomination

Well it didn't do Swinton much good today did it.

OK. Think most people have moved on. That was about 7 years ago.