Yeah but they have a decent coach.



The fans are that disgruntled now I doubt they would satisfy for just watching the youngsters blood each week. We seriously need a big season to get this club heading in the right direction and all supporters singing off the same hymn sheet.

We can put all the youngsters in the team now they would just waste away and have there SL careers over before they've started. We have a coach who can't help develop them and supporters who are that desperate for some success go way OTT when a player makes a mistake. We as a club is not a good environment to be bringing youngsters through IMO.

A competitive and happy club makes it easier for youngsters to slide into the side and develop.

Well, yes, the coaching staff have stopped the youngsters coming through, and that's [iwhy[/i we're trying to flout the rules. I still don't agree with doing so, though. We should sort out our coaching problems and go with what we have for next year. It's a good enough side to do a hell of a lot better than we've done this year (with the right coach).

the rfl have to make the rules far more clear for me every team can only have 6 non british born players and then over 6-8 years bring that down gradually to 3 so simple and better for the game

I agree with that post.

SUPER LEAGUE GOES NATIVE
By Ian Laybourn, PA Sport Rugby League Correspondent
22 June 2007

"Super League clubs have agreed to wean themselves off their dependence on overseas signings.

Several sides regularly field up to 12 overseas players, taking advantage of the Kolpak ruling, grandparentage and European passports but now the Rugby Football League are to act to close the loopholes.

From next year, at least five members of a first-team squad of 25 must contain players who have either graduated from a club's academy system or are aged under 21.

This will increase by one player each year until 2011, when a squad must have at least eight homegrown players. During the same period, the number of overseas players must be reduced from 10 to five.

Nigel Wood, the RFL's chief operating officer, said: "This new rule fulfils a long-standing objective to encourage clubs to develop young talented players.

"By giving them greater opportunity at the top level, it is likely to improve standards not only on a national level but also internationally.

"Over time, the number of home-born players in a squad will increase whilst the number of players who are not academy, Super League or National League club-trained will be reduced."

The 12 club chief executives passed the proposal at their two-day summit in Perpignan, where they also agreed to implement an overhaul of the salary cap, which will in future prevent clubs overspending."

As already said, I think initially we acted in good faith that all other clubs would actually reduce their number of overseas players. Naive in the extreme, as it turned out, and a shame we're stooping to that level now.

wigan have more than 5 overseas players in the squad

The rules are actually pretty clear. The complications have come from potential legal action by overseas players who were already employed here when the Non-Fed rule came in and from accommodating EU employment law. Over time the first issue will disappear as these players retire and the second is manageable.

I know it looks like a fiasco at present, and the RFL certainly haven't helped by setting precedents for 'one off' exemptions, but it should work out given time.

Just a thought,

How about looking at this from another angle and reward clubs for promoting home grown players rather then the messy rules around overseas signings. You could develop the idea of discounting players contribution to the salary cap allowing clubs to develop a home grown team of talent over time without the worry of keeping them under the cap and loosing then to rival clubs.

Not sure if the idea is 100% there but but be worth rewarding the clubs that invest in the youth of the game?

The same thing happened in the UK with the ice hockey, after going from only 3 imports to being allowed to 3 imports and a reclassified player (basically a Canadian with UK passport) because the BIHA were challenged on the ruling by Tim Fecking Cranston so teams then filled up squads with 3 imports and 3 or 4 reclassified players. Only problem being the junior development and advance of the juniors got stunted and so we are now left with the teams having 9-10 imports per team as no longer enough quality home grown players to fill the rosters. then a rule came out saying teams had to field at least 2 or 3 UK players on the ice but not sure if this is still the case as lost all interest in the sport here due to the politics.

This is the worry for me with RL.

Is this something that could be workable in our sport? Allow teams to sign as many imports as they like, but have a rule saying they can only field 3/4/5 per game?

Unfortunately as long as this breaches employment law someone or some club will find a way around the rules until eventually they just refuse to abide by it, And the problem is the rfl cannot legally bind clubs to a gentlemans agreement. the worse thing is I can see the same eventually happening with the salary cap..

I think a rule like that would be a lot easier too enforce than the current quota system.

and thats where the problem lies, its cheaper and the quota makes it easier, maybe if clubs couldnt bring in any old Aussie they would have to put more efforts into the youngsters, more time and effort, more quaility,
we all seem to think that without all these Exports our game would struggle, maybe it would, BUT maybe with better youngsters coming through who've had more time spent on them, wed only struggle for a few years.
this is only an observation, it may be total rubbish, but IMO it would be nice to get back to 3 exports.

Id expect the whole of the Crusades foreign contingent to get dispensation

Isn't this the way it works in football to some extent? I think in Italian you can only field 3 non-european players but retain more. It might even be the same in the Premier League.

The relative wealth of the NRL and SL is going to make quotas redundant, I'd assume, when they get their new tv deal.

Those who were most keen for more British players to be given a chance should get their wish. Those who think that this will narrow the gap to the Kangaroos are in for a disappointment, IMO. What will be more likely to help is if more of our best follow Ellis, Burgess and Graham to the NRL.

Agree with that. The end result in any case is a poorer SL competition in the medium term at least, and a resulting drop in sponsorship and TV money. It then becomes a downward spiral. The RFL should be putting steps in place to ensure that SL clubs can still attract the best worldwide talent to enrich the competition by widening the salary cap and reintroducing limits based upon turnover, whilst giving financial incentive to clubs to promote youngsters from within. It should also invest far more of its profits into young player development through the clubs.

I don't agree with increasing the salary cap. It's already more than most clubs can afford. If the sport can't generate enough income to compete with aussie wages then we need to focus on improving British players. RL players are paid well enough compared to most other sports to make it attractive enough but clubs need to start spending a reasonable amount on youth development instead of doing it on the cheap

Which is why there should be incentives to promote youth as I said. That can't be done alone though as the best players, including the top British youth that comes through, will just play in the NRL if our top clubs can't compete with the wages over there. There has to be a plan at both ends of the spectrum otherwise SL will become a junior feeder comp with the best handful of juniors going to Aus and staying there. SKY, sponsors, and fans want to see the best players playing in SL so there has to be a mix. The idea that SL can fill itself with British youngsters and flourish is equally as wrong as the idea that swamping teams with second rate overseas players is wrong. A mixture of incentives at both ends of the spectrum are needed. It's hardly as if the current salary cap rules have ensured parity of competition and removed the danger of financial default after all.

The issue is that most clubs can't even afford the current salary cap so what's the point increasing it? All that will happen is that clubs will overspend even more and some will go to the wall. With aussie incomes for the top players expected to be North of £1/2m a year we can never comepete anyway. The best players will always be attracted to where salaries are highest. It happens in every sport

The real issue is that we're not producing enough good quality youngsters and the issue isn't that there aren't enough kids with the talent around. Player production should be part of the franchise requirement IMO and clubs that don't do it should be penalised

Successful "player production" should be rewarded with salary cap incentives. Clubs are going to the wall now at the current cap level as you say. Do you think the cap should be reduced as a result of this ? If so how attractive do you think the competition would become to the main sources of income it has - TV and sponsorship - if it became effectively a junior league with no stars playing in it ? More clubs might be more solvent but there might not be a league to play in.

There is already a self imposed reduction in salary cap spend from at least 1/2 the clubs in the competition. Fact is that all but a handful of players will never go to Oz so the competition won't be diminished. Sponsors and TV are interested in spectator numbers and viewers. Do you really believe that losing a few players to oz will affect this? How many top players have come over here from oz in their prime since SL started?

Is your answer for the competition to spend it's way to success? All that will happen is that the same players will earn more money. It won't make them better and the real superstars of the game will all be playing down under anyway. The RFU salary cap is significantly ahead of ours and we haven't seen the predicted drain on players from union.

The fact is taht RL players in SL are, on the whole, well paid and few of them would earn what they do from the game elewhere

They could have something like, no federation trained player 21/22 years and under, to count on the cap.

A club can claim a ‘set or limited’ compensation fee for the first time sale of a player, whatever age they are when sold. The fee to compensate the cost of development, not the value of player.

If our competition falls (further) behind in salary terms it will mean that all these top young players that will take the place of overseas stars will go where the money is.. They will go to RU or NRL. There have been a few go over of late to both - some of the better youngsters of course - and this number would increase if they can't earn comparable wages in league. The reason there haven't been all that many go up to now is the precise reason for the debate - there isn't that much quality around. What I'm saying is this - if by some miracle more talent starts coming through there has to be a league worth playing in with salaries that prevent players leaving otherwise what's the point ?

Ideas along these lines will help if they don't run into legal difficulties along the way. The game needs world stars as well as youngsters. There must be ways to keep the mix at the right balance and much of that will be down to how much players can be paid.