How many of those players were full time?

The Alliance saw the likes of Dean Lawford and Patrick Entat make more appearances for the club in that arena than the first team.

I'm not sure whether the above statement is a good or bad thing!

You've posted an awful lot on here since the CC final about the winter rugby days. I agree with alot of what you say, but it does you no good whatsoever to be so nostalgic about an era that is in the past and will never return. We have to make the best of the current situation, stop looking back and start looking forward.

The super league era isn't the saviour of the game as sky like to make out, but the winter days are gone forever, accept it.

Way the game's going, I guess. Hardaker's got the full back berth and is likely to have for some time. BJB or even Watkins to cover if/when he's injured. We have a core of players who've been present throughout our recent "glory years"; we now seem to be moving back to the situation where the bulk of our team either are, or are likely to be, long term local incumbents. Rather reminiscent of how the game used to be when you could name not only those players that played for your team in most matches and their positions but also those that played for everyone else's teams too. Or perhaps this is just an age thing

In stark contrast to other successful professional team sports where a number of top class players can be competing for the same position, and their employers can afford to pay the requisite wages to maintain the size of the squad.

I think it's been a disaster for player development. There needs to be a real thoughtful look at the salary cap structure and how it impacts on the ability of clubs to develop juniors. I have argued that the dearth of half backs is a direct result of clubs being unable to develop them under the current system. It is tremendously difficult for clubs to keep players after 20 years old and many players don't develop full potential until after that. You also have the Ian Kirke factor where "safe pairs of hands" get a squad place at the expense of a potentially better junior.
I also don't like farming players out to Championship teams under dual reg. It's potentially disruptive for the junior club, it's not ideal for the player and it's very difficult for clubs to do this with half backs.

I'd like to see a way to allow clubs to run A teams. The cost has been mentioned, but young players have to be realistic, very few of them will be missing out on big money contracts for other clubs, for most it's a chance to stay within a club structure and develop a career.
We can approach player drain by looking at ways to pay the few "stars" of our game even more or we can look at ways of producing more and better youngsters and keeping them in the game until they fulfill their potential.

Just my ramblings.

Just about every star player the game has seen have started their first team career before the age of 20.

There is exceptions, but you could count them on your hands over the last 30 years.

The problem is the coaches and their reluctance to risk. The example of DHM perfect, in that Kirke is the safe option, he is. But we could have took many "risks" over his period at the club and had 20-30 players better than him, who are no longer at the club.

If we look at the NFL, most teams tend to have a set of starting "stars" on big money, then the backups behind them are very much limited role players on (relatively) very low salaries. How do the NBA and NHL compare?

I feel our halfback problem goes back to junior coaching. For too long it's been "run from that cone to that cone and then throw to that player" rather than involve decision making and reading the game. Over recent years junior coaching has seen a shift towards more of a mini-game format to overcome that.

In terms of playing matches, ideally we need a competitive and strong junior league, but the gap between that and open age pro (both SL and Championship) has been too big. Taking a handful of players out of that weakened the competition even further. The sport had a choice: either mandate U19s (or whatever age) stay in the U19s and try to strengthen that competition, or take even more players out of it and put them into the Championship. We've obviously gone with the latter, which gives a signifcantly higher standard of competition

McAvoy was a strange one. Hasn't impressed me at all in the 19s and I can't see what the club saw in him. Been outplayed consistently by Baldwinson and Mulhern pre-injury.

Brace yourself for a couple of years of the 19s side struggling a little, as the current 16s move up en masse and those players in their last year at 19s either break into the first team squad, go out on dual reg or get released.

Looking forward to see how the likes of Sam Hallas and Jordan Lilley handle the next step up in their development.

I may have missed your point but any player who is tempted away to another club by promises of gametime/salary won't necessarily be lost to the game, will they?

They may have to take a step down to semi-pro level to get that break though, which in turn impacts on the time they can spend working on their fitness and skills alongside a day job.

What worries me more is the number of players at Academy level aged 17-18 who are working full-time jobs at the age where they should be devoting the most time to their rugby.

The simple answer to that is to get the clubs to pay more so they dont have to try and earn a living and the RFL should make it a different SC but at a level thats reasonable for a FT young pro.

where will that money come from? The game struggles for money as it is

That's down to the RFL and Clubs themselves to sort out IF they are genuine in their intentions to get young pro's F/T then they'll have to find the money.