Some very valid points in this interview www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... _1_3815261

Some very valid points in this interview www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/ru ... _1_3815261

The man talks a lot of sense....shame there is no-one with the gonads to done anything about it..

Clint's father is always having a say about what he sees wrong with golf, but to give credit where it is due, old Jack also does a hell of a lot to foster young talent in his sport.
Clint has a say like his old man, but up to this time i don't think he has earnt the same sort of respect, and he certainly hasn't put up the money and personal sacrifice that Jack has contributed.
He is still one of the most hated men in Lake Macquarie, and even Jack's name is mud with some people because of the buckets Clint dumped on the Knights.
Basically, STFU Clint, you aint Jack Newton, and you'll always be the fool who dumped the future Miss Universe because she was too poor for you.

Interesting comments. Not sure I could agree that clubs who have nurtured and developed young players should just hand them over to a club who have under invested in their youth structures. Similarly, it's interesting to hear a player complaining about British youngsters being underpaid when he's earned his corn for the last 4 years at a club who seem willing to ship any number of average antipodeans half way around the world and pay them sums tehse British youngsters can only dream of.

His comparison on Oz and UK funding is interesting. Seems to be advocating the idea that the RFL should be propping up unsustainable businesses by providing significant amounts of tehir revenue (which tehy already do through the TV deal). other than TV money, I fail to see where this income will come from and I guess we've maxed out our TV revenues for now.

He's right about the minimum wage at very least.

Surely it's down to the clubs to decide what they want to pay a player, not the RFL

I think he's suggesting that the RFL do a poor job on this front. He might be right, but there is no real evidence one way or the other. Dismissing an 'excuse' (football, RU), is much easier than overcoming it.
The costs of a minimum wage for full-time pros are small, as you say. The only issue is enforcing is - the chance to train with the first team even on a voluntary basis is still seen as a great opportunity it seems. And the cap is set up pretty harshly - £50k for [iall[/i those outside the top 25 earners who play SL, isn't it? I do wonder how Saints can list and use ~32 players. Maybe they're all on those £5k deals that Clint describes.

The existence of a cap in RL and a minimum wage in wider society, mean that regulation is not a novel concept.
If players really are pulling down only £5k, they need protecting from what amounts to exploitation, IMO. Fair enough, the potential rewards are big for those that make it, but even so.

But how many young kids who could have gone onto be super stars have we lost because at seventeen and eighteen we were offering them £5k?

We lose enough players at a young age as it is, some take longer to develop. Although i don't think he's a super star, it's taken Ryan Atkins until twenty three to get near to realising his talent.

At seventeen if someone had offered me £5k to basically sacrifice my life to [ianything[/i I'd have told them to stick it up their Iestyn.

Ref the TV revenues, there is only 1 customer so the RFL are not in a strong bargaining position

Game cannot move on until 95% of the RFL are booted out. There are so many ways things can be improved, but all we'll get is more 'innovations'. ( i.e. pointless, strategy-less, time wasting crap like Milleninium Magic). Before any MM fans get on here saying how much they enjoyed it, let me clarify...it's not about whether its a good idea or not (and plenty people can debate that) - it's that League faces immense challenges and the last thing we need is huge parts of the management's bandwidth being occupied organizing stuff that is definitely NOT a priority.

I don't think that fat lazy clown at the top has the foggiest idea what his priorities are (other than the next KFC bucket). He's too thick, and we don't need the game run by thickos.

Fair points, however if the kid has real potential then the club will pay him more or risk him walking away as per young briscoe form Hull. Many of these kids also are still in some kind of education. I don't see that youngsters in RL are treat any differently to kids in other sposrts. I know someone who's son was in the youth system at city when they were in the premiership and he was on peanuts. I guess it's the sacrifice they make to chase their dreams and the potential lucrative future. You also have to factor in the high level of wastage in players showing potential to those who actually come through

Widening the debate out, how many aspiring lawyers, accountants, doctors etc are racking up huge debts following their career paths.

I'd be surprised if the game has lost any superstars due to a lack of paying kids what they're worth

Sky's dominance of the pay TV market is a problem.

I think he's spot on! Good article. It's a shame comments like this get overlooked by the fools that run this great game.

He really has a point i can only think that he mat be talking about young rovers players earning that and its a disgrace. we are not in victorian times where workhouses and young lads down mines was the norm. Thankfully William wilberforce took care of that but my point being is asking young to place their bodies on line for pittance pay is disgusting. The rfl does need independent evaluation as it seem above that.

I know the brother of a current SL player who moved clubs two years ago, his club wanted to keep him but offered only £7,500 per season. He moved to his current club for a living wage and is now coming on strong without having to find alternative income to back the RL wage up.

Thousands of players throughout the country put thier bodies on the line for nothing & even pay match day subs, they do it because they enjoy it, any cash they get is a bonous. If young kids wont play for a small wage with the chance of progressing then they wont be motivated anyway & we dont need them.

Some amateurs get paid good money from good careers, which means they cannot go full time pro, if we want a lad to go full time then we should pay at least the national minumum wage. If the sum of 5K is true, then surely that is illegal.

Depends on what you mean by young kids. If your talking about 15/16 year olds then maybe, but if you mean 18/19 year olds then no. People have bills to pay at the end of the day, not everyone have parents who are able to support them financially until they progress.

So Wigan should have given you Charnley



Does Newton do the Allams publicity in his spare time

Guess even his former fans in OZ reckon he is a gob3...!!!!

I wish this was true but unfortunately no one else wants RL. Its a similar arguement that the media have with skys dominance of football and cricket. If sky dropped football the BBC still wouldn't show much of it. As RL is way down the pecking order it would disappear without sky.

I don't think that is a like for like comparison. An undergraduate medical student isn't going to be asked to do a real shift in A&E. I'm not saying trainee RL players should get £15k - but once they are training full-time and have a squad number and are, even occasionally, being selected to play SL, I don't think it is unreasonable.




You're assuming that if Sky disappeared, or at least had to compete, others wouldn't fill the vacuum. I doubt this is the case. As both the dominant platform and with exclusive rights to so many sports, Sky essentially operates as a monopoly. It would make sense to break it up - economically. Because it is a powerful media monopoly, with major shareholders that also own powerful newspapers, it is difficult to do politically - even after hackgate.

I'm not quite sure how the wage and duties of, let's say, an admin support worker at the RFL (who may not be pulling their weight and should therefore be "out the door"icon_wink.gif reads across to a "72-10" scoreline. Did Nigel Wood miss a tackle and give away a penalty?



Otherwise, some good points. Why didn't he mention them earlier?

TBF, I'm fairly certain that the Red Hall typing pool XIII could have given us a better game than Wakefield back in July.