Ellis was at least very big for a centre. A small, young half would have no chance

Time was when we all laughed at the thought of Joel Tomkins going to RU. He apparently had everything to stay in RL for - family connections, home town club, international recognition, regular first grade rugby for one of the top sides in the country, and a very fat pay packet. But somehow someone still managed to convince him the grass was greener.

It's naive to think that attempts aren't constantly being made to lure our top players. In fact, it's ridiculous that we're even having this conversation. We all know that's exactly what is happening. (It happens at amateur level too, particularly among juniors).

Contriving some nonsense like a draft system, where you send an ambitious young lad to a wooden spoon club because it's not fair on that club to do otherwise would only make it more likely they'd look further afield.

But even if it didn't, where is all this incredible talent going to come from that will suddenly, overnight, make Wakey into a much better side? God help the British game if the likes of the Wigan, Leeds and Saints academies were taken out of commission and we suddenly had to rely on the RFL to organise some kind of central talent pool. But even if by some miracle they managed that, how would that improve the lower clubs' declining stadia, their cash problems, their poor crowds. their -poor management? How would it make them overall into a much more attractive package than, say, Saracens or Gloucester or Sale, especially if those clubs are pulling their usual stunt of offering built-in 'play for England' deals?

Wigan youngsters dream of playing for Wigan. The same with lads in Leeds, Saints, Warrington etc. They might, when they're older and more savy, be willing to go to a rival RL club if it's offering equivalent opportunities. But they're not going to go happily off into the twilight realms of the lower reaches, having no say in it whatsoever - especially if a more golden future is promised elsewhere.

And of course, if the RU don't entice them, maybe the NRL will do a better job. You want to ensure that all our best young talent leaves us, or simply want to reduce it from the outset - you hand the job of developing it to the RFL.

So you think Gareth Ellis just turned up at 16 in the Wakefield academy as a Great Britain player?

another club would need to trade for him or he wouldnt play.

The draft wouldnt solve all the games problems, nobody is pretending it would, it isnt supposed to. It would address one of them.

Plenty of young kids dont play for the team they support, very very very few at 17,18, 19 are in complete control of their career choosing when and where they play.

In your example of Ryan Hampshire, he would be going in to the draft now, There wouldn’t be a whole lot of difference between what he is doing now, and what he would do. The only real difference would be where he played next year. The idea that if Wigan didn’t offer him a contract and only Wakefield did then he would walk away from the game is frankly nonsense.

no but he progressed into a regular after he left and his progressed into a better player

Well yes, as he got older he improved until he hit his peak and has then declined. Thats what happens with every player. Even Tomkins. If Tomkins wins the Golden Boot in two years is that because he improved once he left Wigans sub-par coaching?

unfortunately it comes down to money which will be needed to fund a central academy system, which the RFL hasn't got in abundance. Some clubs now are spending little on academies and not even paying up to the salary cap, so the RFL can't take funding away from the clubs making some even weaker than they are now.

I am sure clubs like Leeds, Saints, Wigan would be really glad to give money back to the RFL to fund an academy and draft that they dont get the benefit of whereas other clubs pay nothing towards funding it and get the pick of the best talent coming through.

Without the funding the RFL can't implement anything.......

How can we sell the game when the we don't even have a sponsor for SL. It would be great to have TV companies fighting for the rights to televise us and having a bidding war .I have watched RL for 60 years and I fear for the future of the game at professional level amateur and world wide the game is being played in a lot more countries and is booming. I think it was mentioned in commentary in one of the USA matches that there was 130,000 registered players in the US.
Bring the A teams back open age level will benefit the game better all round for the game .

Yet again, it would be a mechanism which would in effect punish those clubs who've brought most to the game and benefit those who've brought least.

If we think Lenagan, Moran and co are up in arms now, wait until the RFL try to impose a draft system.

I agree with this entirely, and I think that moving to a draft would help us address those problems.

There is currently a grant given to clubs from the RFL for academies, this could be spent centrally instead. I would also look at the likes of Saints, Leeds and Wigan and see what they are spending, and take that amount from the TV deal before it gets to the clubs. SO if Leeds are spending and additional £500k on youth development, everyones funding goes down by 500k, i can see some clubs arguing that they couldnt afford the cut in funding, my argument would be if you can't afford an SL youth development programme, you shouldnt be in SL.

Another way we can address funding is that by spending centrally we would be able to benefit from better economies of scale, be able to restrict duplication, cut costs of clubs fighting for very young players.

It would also allow us to do things like paying Joey Johns to come over and run a half backs masterclass for 6 months. If he charges 50k for doing that its pretty prohibitive for a club to pay for him to come and work with 4 young halfbacks, if it was done centrally and he was working with the best 35 young halfbacks in the country it looks a lot more realistic

wow.....cutting from all clubs handout what the top clubs spend on their youth programme will bankcrupt a fair few clubs if they still try to spend to the salary cap...suppose it is an easy way to reduce the league to 10 clubs. There will always be discord between those that are a benfit to rugby league and those that hold it back by not having the financial resources necessary to improve the game

it should be a condition of being a SL team that you have to spend x amount on your academy setup. if you cant afford it, you play in the championship

Quite like that idea.

So us, Wire, Leeds and Saints it is then.

and that is where the problem in the game lies, some clubs can't / won't spend money on developing youth and then moan that the top clubs have all the young talent coming through. They want someone else to fund their player development for them so they can compete on a level playing field.

How can clubs who get below 8000 attendances expect to compete with those that get 14000+

Unfortunately in a professional sport you get out what you put in.

Im not sure that is necessarily the case. Leeds, Wigan, Wire, saints, Hudds, Hull, Salford, Les Catalans, Widnes you would expect to be able to handle that fine. Bradford and Cas whilst not rich have traditionally spent a fair bit on youth development. Hull KR are playing the pauper but they seem to have no problem offering big contracts to the likes of Paul Cooke, or Willie Mason, the likes of Weyman, Costigan and Keating wont be cheap, if they have to do without them to invest in british youth so be it.

London and Wakefield are basket cases financially anyway but huge amounts are spent on youth development in London any way, I doubt they are massively behind the big clubs in that respect.

As i said, if you can;t afford to create an SL level academy you shouldnt be in SL, if these clubs arent investing in youth development they arent contributing, just taking up space. If they need to drop down because of that? Meh,

1. Where is your evidence this will occur? The draft players will presumably be playing in junior teams and so as they do now will be played in positions to suit that team.

2. Why does that follow?
3. No it couldn't. It might need a centre but if the best players in the draft are centres they won't get them of they are not one of the worst clubs. They may have an option to take players they do not rate as good enough. What then? Clubs compelled to take players who may have got a game elsewhere? Or is that the premature end of some players careers with no takes for them from the draft? How many "late developers" would be lost to the game here?
4. If they go into a draft they have to agree to go wherever it sends them and that will never wash here. As with other drafts the best clubs will still get the best players anyway as the bottom sides in receipt of the best players in the draft trade them. And no you could not compel clubs and players to endure the players remain at their drafted clubs.
5. There won't be any spread of talent for the same reason as 4. The talent will always seek to maximise its chances of success and they will just move on. Contracts are after all, worthless.



I just don't see how any that follows. "Sunley and Chisholm would probably have had a bit more effort put into them if they were the best option at a lesser club". Err..why?

And this: "Leeds could have also addressed the prop position and probably avoided the likes of O’niell and Cross being brought over."

Simply does not follow at all.



People don't grow up wanting to play RL but to play RL for Wigan, Saints and Leeds etc. Grow up watching Wigan and then be told you as you are the best player in the draft you have to go and play for London is no incentive. Transfer request on the table on day 1.

The idea of a draft seems to me to have a similar motivation to the reorganisation of the league to 12x12 then 8x8x8. It doesn't address the fundamental problem that some clubs are just not good enough and penalises those that are in an attempt to rectify matters.

take Carl Ablett as an example. He played junior rl at loose forward/second rower and always looked a natural forward, at the time he came through Leeds played him in the centres to cover, the early part of his career was him filling in at centre rather than his natural ack position, this meant his training and coaching were targeted towards centre limiting abletts training for 2nd row. Under a draft LEDs wouldn't have needed a 2nd rower so wouldn't have picked a 2nd rower, they would have picked a centre, Ablett would have gone to a club needing a second rower and played fad trained there

there would be a higher standard on youth rugby at amateur level through the increase in funding and improvements in training I mentioned, also in coming through the championships they would be playing at a higher level than academy rugby
if a player is traded for by a big club, they would need to compensate the other club, that's how a trade works. If a club doesn't want to sign a player they don't have to. Just like now, they players who aren't drafted would be the players who wouldn't be signed
you don't need need to compel anyone to do anything. The drafting team simply takes ownership of a players registration for a year, if that player doesn't want to play he doesn't he to, if another team wants him the simply have to compensate the drafting team for his registration
they can move on, but not to another Rl Side without the other team compensating the drafting side

because you are likely to put more effort into you best young wing prospect than you are your 6th best.

of course it does, if you have better young players you bring over fewer overseas ones, you have less need for them

transfer request denied. You are massively overestimating the control a 19 year old kid has over his RL career, the vast vast vast majority are desperate for any kind of contract, only very very very few, probably 10 in every cohort would be in a position to demand a contract at a big club, probably one or two a year have their choice over which.


No clubs are good enough. Wigan Leeds or saints may be good by SL standards but that doesn't mean they are perfect. They are as good as they have to be, they are nowhere near the NRL clubs.

i promise not to mention "draft" ever again

That is not evidence and is what you think may have happened. I am saying the exact same compromises would be made in the draft team Ablett had played for as Leeds did if his draft team needed a centre.



I still don't see how it follows. For a start championship sides are semi-pro outfits with semi-pro coaching set ups and semi-pro facilities. I would argue two years at one of those compared to an academy set up like Wigan's is not going to deliver top grade players. It's even worse at amateur clubs in terms of standards and facilities. We do not have a college set up like they do in American Football where the college facilities and coaching is on a par with the professional game. The amount of money required to make the coaching etc they get from 17 to 19 good enough would be an absolutely huge investment.

That is a key point. A draft system can only work if (as in US Football) the coaching and facilities while players are at the junior level are good enough. The amateur game here is nothing like that and I doubt they would want any such involvement anyway. Far too much commitment. Same goes for championship sides.



That is not how it is now. With a draft there is an absolute cut off at age 19. All players are either drafted or released. Clubs can currently take a different view and keep some on, loaning them out if needs be. In any case the U19 rules are stupid and ought to be changed so we don't risk losing players. Under a draft system clubs would have a set number of draft picks and IMO are far less likely to take a risk with such players.



So they get compensated. By how much and that still means the move on? They could be traded for lesser players, not just cash but given the money in RL monetary compensation would be peanuts anyway. It's not going to be an obstacle to it happening or a great benefit to the compensated club.



But he's not yours, he's in a draft system.



Not true. The vast majority of overseas players are experienced professionals who bring precisely that to the table, experience. Why do you think Wigan signed Bowen or Pettybourne? We have plenty of young players at the club and even if we got the pick of draft and he was a full back we'd still sign a player like Bowen having lost a player like Sam.



I was not talking about the majority here. The top draft players have just been told they are the best junior players going. If you think they and their agents won't be able to exploit this then I don't think you understand the value that draft systems bestow on the best draftees. The top draftees won't be playing for poor clubs and so just what is the point of it?

The rest of the draft will be lucky to get a contract at all. Why sign a player you know to be not of the standard you require? If suitable players aren't available in the draft, look overseas or in the transfer market.



I meant not good enough at developing players not, not good enough by SL standard or relative to the NRL in absolute terms. The draft system is just a cop out along the same lines as the proposed league restructure. It hides how bad the worst clubs are at developing players. The fact Leeds and Wigan are not NRL standard as teams has nothing to do with it. There is also no infrastructure to support it i.e. the equivalent of the college system in US Football that would deliver draftees as good as what comes out of the best club academies now.

.why would Leeds pick a second rower if they needed a centre?

.young players right now spend most of their time at amateur clubs,scholarship and u16 level are mostly just lose affiliations. Championship teams are better than academy sides.

i already said we would see more spent at these levels. The ages players would be at amateur clubs they are at amateur clubs now. I think you are wrong about the championship sides

i have no idea why you have decided this has to be the case. There is no need for it to be so at all.

it would be whatever the drafted team thought was congruent with the value of the player they picked. Whether money, draft picks, or other players. This would obviously be of a benefit of that side otherwise they wouldn't trade said player.

he would be the best winger at whatever championship side he was at pre-draft and he would be the club who drafted hims player afterwards. That seems an entirely invented issue.

no you wouldn't, there would no need, if Wigan had say hardaker, they wouldn't have gone out and got Bowen for the same reason leeds didn't go for Bowen, it would be idiotic to spend a large proportion of your cap on a 30+ Year old fullback if you had a top quality 20 year old one.

again this seems like an issue you have simply decided in your head and are insisting it is a real issue. Kids at 19 without an SL start to their name are not in a good bargaining position and they aren't going to be subject to big money NRL and union moves simply because they are at hull fc or Cas instead of Wigan

exactly as it is now then?

what is coming out of the system now isn't good enough, in quality and depth. Some would. Argue the system is limiting the potential of what we do have. I can't see how improving amateur coaching and facilities, and bringing through players progressively through different levels, moving to SL and a club where they are most needed isn't better than the proven failure of a system we have now

A draft system would be great for any sport, providing you were starting from scratch, and already had an even spread of centres of production, not forgetting a sizeable bag of cash going spare within the sport

Unfortunatly we have none of the above, so it wont happen, ever

Simple as

We dont really need an even spread of centres of production, especially as we have nowhere near an even spread of clubs. And we would have a sizeable bag of cash to use for youth development.