How many british players who otherwise would have been at HKR did Crusaders take out of the player pool?

They would need to start and actually give them a shot for them to continue to do so.

Between them they played 28 games last season.

Thats just pathetically disingenuous and you know it.

Not at all. I can see FC's faults and am big enough to discuss them without the need for knee-jerk and myopic defence of things that are patently not right. We are 3 over the quota numbers agreed in 2007 and this is disappointing. You are 6 over and either don't care or feel some strange need to defend it as an irrelevance. That's the difference between us, I suppose. By your logic I guess, Widnes should have 15 overseas players. Guess what? They have less than Rovers. Oh dear.

Strange need to defend it, Lets see if you can dig up a post where I defend our recruitment policy?
I simply can't see how you can comment after your team have had 10 more years in super league and have a massive total of 2 less overseas players then ourselves. It's shoddy from both clubs.

Agreed.

I will forgive you as you won't have seen I'Anson play much, but our coaching staff were right out of turd polish, hence his release. Interesting that Widnes had a similar stock out of the same item.

Not forgetting of course that this is the same I'Anson who was dumped by his previous club following a serious leg injury and after not really being given a fair crack at a first team spot who we than magnanimously picked up and gave a fair crack at Super League to.

Which team was that?

Leeds.

Same team that Scott Murrell was at.

I omitted that bit Sands, but then again, I'm not going to even attempt to knock Leeds junior pathway, its something we should aspire towards.

It does help if you have the resources to hoover up any and pretty much every promising junior in the country.

The fact HKR were needing to ‘polish a turd’ in I’anson is HKR’s fault.

To borrow a joke from physics - that argument only works for a spherical Hull KR in a vacuum. We'd still be in the second tier if we'd have invested in youth instead of the first team.





What has left us so far behind Australia is the size of the sport here compared to there. We're so far [iahead[/i of France for a similar reason. It's unpalatable, but there are no silver-bullets that will significantly change the balance - it's were it is for some very good and, frankly, obvious reasons. Now that isn't to say we shouldn't try - but denial and fantasy, while making a lovely comfort blanket, are not helpful.



Yep. Even I think the implementation of the non-fed rule has become a joke. The new Crusaders and Heremaia/Dobson dispensations have given us 3 extra overseas players, and I can't make that argument with a straight face anymore. It's not my job or investment on the line, but as an established SL club, I think we should have gone into 2012 with a couple fewer. I think there is some value in the non-fed rule, but for rather different reasons to you.



We've been lucky. We've benefitted more than most. Sometimes life deals you a decent hand. It has helped make Rovers a mid-ranking SL club very quickly. I'm a club-first parochialist... but England RL was not significantly harmed in the making of this movie. These threads are small price to pay.



The extent to which [ithe club[/i has [isought[/i dispensations is exaggerated, IMO. Lovegrove, fair enough. But nobody will complain if fellow British passport holders Laurence Pearce and George Griffin get dispensations, I assume. Mason's dispensation was necessary because Tonga had a nervous breakdown, but let's count that too. The rest were universal. Now, we haven't run away from them either, but I see no shame in playing a good hand.
Just for clarification - you'd be happy to go with the 5 overseas players you list, even while other clubs benefit from the dispensations, as a moral 'stand', despite the likely sporting and economic consequences? Or only if all SL clubs reduce to 5, something that would probably be of relative benefit to Hull FC?







Sorry - call me cynical.

Neither Scott Murrell, I’anson weren’t given a shot because of overseas players, neither could get in to the side and neither got a shot because they weren’t the best young british player at the club. You cant criticise a club for having more young british players than they can accommodate and use it as a defence of a club which doesn’t have enough.

Aye.

Benefit of being a big club - in the salary cap era, I think it is fair enough.

Maybe, maybe not. But a lot is expected from you at elite level including youth development, if you cant do both then you don’t deserve a spot at the top table


There is only one, and will only ever be one option for us to catch up. Produce better players. It is part of the solution for almost all our problems. We would have a better game, more exposure, more fans, more sponsors, we would have a bigger international game. Producing youth is the start of the virtuous cycle towards growth. Without doing it, we cant start.


Every club should be going in with a couple less. Those at the top of the game should be embarrassed by the clubs desperation to avoid their responsibilities to developing the next generation, and those who have failed so massively to get to where they promised they should be should hang their heads.

Come on chief, I know you're a bit on the autistic spectrum when it comes to this issue but even you must have been able to see my post was some what tongue in cheek.

Thankfully, the Franchising committee see things differently to your good self, hence the upgraded licence for the next period.

But we weren't at the elite level. You can't judge second tier clubs by SL standards - the financial gap is massive. Widnes won the Northern Rail Cup in 2009 and switched to development - that wasn't an option for Rovers in 2006. We needed promotion. My current avatar honours the counter argument though.






I agree on the objective, but not that overseas quotas can make any significant contribution to achieving it. Protectionism has its uses - improving competitiveness isn't one of them. It's a top down solution to a bottom up problem.
The clubs can't be trusted to behave altruistically - so instead of being surprised and disappointed give their responsibility, and the associated money to a body set up to nurture young talent. Focus that money onto a smaller number of higher quality Service Area teams at academy level. Employ specialist development coaches, rather than helping out grizzled old pros who've fallen on hard times.
The effect will probably be only marginal, but to me it makes sense.
The objection might be that clubs still won't give kids a chance. But Aussie kids get chances on merit in the NRL, and that League is even more flooded with antipodeans than we are. If they're good enough, they'll get a go.

Yes, ‘thankfully’ the RFL don’t seem too bothered about clubs failing in their responsibilities to youth development and have allowed HKR to rely on overseas players and put out a squad mostly consisting of NRL reserve graders so they can finish mid-table. Thank god for that.

You are now.

Quotas have been shown not to work, HKR are proving that right now. Certain clubs will take any avenue they can to seek a short term advantage even if it means neglecting important parts of creating a sustainable game. Something else needs to be done to force these clubs to see their short-termism and to force them to make a meaningful contribution to the sport.

Aye. I think we're doing okay and are pretty much on schedule regarding developing players at Hull KR. Our 'failure' as you put it is a product of your unrealistic and rather contrived expectations and assessments. IMO.




Yep. Why is this a surprise to anyone?
Better regulation is needed, not appeals to conscience. We're hardly the only club to pursue our own self-interest. A lot might be expected of a club at the elite level - I wouldn't have put following the supposed spirit of the rules or a sense of disinterested self-denial near the top of the list. Again... call me cynical.

Soory to burst your bubble cockle but the difference between Widnes and Rovers is that when we "Earned" promotion we had from October to February to assemble a team that could stave of relegation and guarantee superleague survival. Widnes have been handed promotion and have had from July to February to assemble a team that will not get relegated for three seasons, not exactly the same scenario is it. Just an observation of course o font of all things HKR.

I don't have any qualms over Rovers using the overseas rules to the limit, in fact I believe it has been a shrewd policy by Rovers and will continue to be so under Sandercock’s management, albeit with a shift in emphasis on bringing over younger and less established NRL players. I suggest this is based on two reasons: Firstly, at this point in time it is cost/benefit effective to invest in younger and less established overseas players, and secondly, Rovers youth development systems are only just beginning to pay dividends.
The reason why it is cost/benefit effective to invest in younger and less established overseas players isn’t rocket science. For starters, they are a cheaper option than their counterparts in SL, who are currently demanding inflated contract terms. For me, a more practical reason (coupled with them being cheaper options) is how they come packaged and labelled as NRL trained players.

The emphasis on NRL trained players should not be overlooked, because these players have rec’d quality coaching (many from a very young age), and with higher standards than those in SL; the NRL system instils an ideology of aspiring to be the ‘best of the best’ from a young age – this applies across other sports as well in Oz and was explained to me (in his usual graphic way by Newts) a few years ago. It’s a mentality Antipodeans seem to grow up with. I’m not saying this isn’t the case over here, but when you compare SL with NRL home grown strength and depth, many of the discarded NRL trained players are on a par or better than we have at the moment coming through SL youth systems.
Undoubtedly, this is the strength (and depth) of the NRL; its youth development system is to be aspired to, and the reason why the Aussies have a perpetual conveyor belt of highly rated, well prepared players coming through.

In many respects the knock-on effect of its success can be ‘exploited’ (for want of a better term) because it has created a market (untapped in my opinion) which Rovers are turning to. This market has a (wealth) of ‘NRL trained’ players (circa 19-25) languishing in reserve grade, feeder clubs and in other lower competitions. It makes sense to tap into this pool of talent, and is cost/effective because the club is signing players that have been trained by NRL clubs, albeit discarded by the depth and strength of quality it produces. In other words, Rovers have been spared the expense of investing in these players development.

I know the arguments about how overseas players restrict home grown growth; the pensioner gaffs; they are NRL rejects; and are seen by some pundits as being why SL remains behind the NRL. Yes, in some cases each of these claims has substance; however, the SL competition has improved no ends due to the overseas influence, and would be a far lesser product without their contribution. Take a look at Rovers emerging youth and the established British players who are quick to point out the influence of Rovers overseas players. It’s this ‘invisible’ effect which needs to be factored into the debate. I also think there has been a change in mindset by SL clubs to move away from pinning short term success on marquee signings.

On Rovers continued heavy reliance on overseas players; in many respects Hudge spelled it out clearly when he stated at the FF last month, recruitment of home grown players is an expensive option (inflated contract demands etc.,), and so is investment in developing players through youth systems – the gamble factor of producing a return of 0-5 players per annum out of 30-40 youngsters. He quoted how Leeds and Saints invest around half a million per annum in youth development.
As far as I know, Rovers touched on less than half that amount. That is a massive difference and gulf to overcome in financial terms alone, and Rovers have struggled with it since day one (and for the most part, little return to show for it). This point has been a major factor in Rovers reliance on overseas players since entering SL, but the investment in the present crop of reserve grade players could well see Rovers reducing the overseas contingent in the future, although I am in favour of finding a blend. For me, I don't care if Sandercock fills up the overseas lists up with players discarded by the NRL, as long as they bring added value to the squad and the developing youth systems.
In the meantime, we cannot escape the fact the pool of 'discarded' NRL trained players is surprisingly a cheaper option, and I believe will become an option other SL clubs will take up (if not already) over the next few years. Sandercock will know this and he will use his knowledge of the NRL youth development systems to sift out potential recruitment targets for Rovers overseas lists in the future.

people seem to forget hull had the cherrypick of all youngsters for over a decade with us not having reserves or academy for part of that time if we did produce any players they were snapped up striaght away ie jon wilkin even paul fletcher had a lot of chances to go play at a higher level but stayed loyal im quite happy with the way our youth is coming through at the moment and no matter what happens the aussies will still be hammering us in 20 years time so what does it matter

11 out of 25+
Maths and/or english not your strong point then Smokey?