But we are needing to create a new league at a similar standard to the championship which will mean removing large numbers of players from the championship which will damage that competitor anyway. You strip all dual reg players out of there, plus say 45 of the better one's with the most potential and you are stripping away a huge amount of talent and putting it in a league where nobody is watching.

If we get this 'A' team league to the level it needs to be we would be putting ourselves in a situation where the 2nd best league in our structure is a development league and the championship is arguably the 3rd best standard of RL in this country.

I appreciate what you say about the identity of clubs in the lower league, but I've not heard a good argument yet that the place for players not quite good enough or not quite ready for the top tier isn't the 2nd tier.

I think you’re overplaying the impact of players acting as dual reg on the standards in the championship. I don’t think you’d see any difference in the league table if those players were absent. Have they increased the standard of rugby at the clubs they’re at? Difficult to say. Has it impacted on attendances? Hard to quantify. But I’m not sure how many extra fans have gone to Hunslet to see the Leeds juniors play. Have those lads improved any more than if they’d played in an U21 competition with a few open age players? We’ll never know.

I’m not sure where the other 45 players you mentioned come from. Granted there may be some that might hang around in A teams on the chance of the occasional first team game but many will choose 1st team rugby as they used to back in the 80s and 90s. A lot of players that’s started in A teams came good later e.g. Scott Naylor and Mike Forshaw at the Bulls.

I do know that both John Bastian and Matt Diskin at the Bulls are of the opinion that they’d rather have young players developing within their parent club under their coaches tutelage rather than dual reg at another lower league club which may not have the requisite coaching ability, facilities etc. They believe that 19 is far too young an age to be deciding a player’s future and that some may need more time and extra supervision to come through.

I can believe it when I remember Jamie Peacock at 19. He didn’t show anything like the potential that he did at 22 when he began to get in our 1st team and even then he was a long long way from being the player he was to become. Late developers like him stand more chance of being lost altogether under the current system.

I think the bottom line is finance. The clubs that are strapped for cash voted to get rid of U21s to save money. The wealthier clubs went along with it because they have enough talent coming through anyway so could still cherry pick the best.

It probably won't make that effect at the upper end of the championship but then Leigh and Bradford don't really use it. For other clubs like Hunslet and the Cumbrian clubs it would mean saying goodbye to a large amount of their talent.

The 45 players cam fro. The 4 over age players you mentioned that clubs would keep on. 4x11. These are likely to be players currently playing in the championship. I think it takes an awful lot of talent from the championship.

I don't disagree with 19 being too young and I'm not actually arguing know favour of dual reg which is a typical rl fudge that manages to mitigate the benefits of feeder clubs whilst still making some clubs feel a loss of identity. I'm not in favour of it I just think an A team isn't the solution and it's a very expensive none solution.

I agree to a point though you could just exclude them from the Middle 8's. So say if Leeds Reserves finish 3rd in the Championship then they would not take part in the Middle 8's and would effectively be 5th instead. I know it's faffy and not ideal but then I don't think there's an ideal scenario for RL that would keep everyone happy.

I agree with you re an A-team/Reserves league by the way, full time professionalism means that isn't really possible anymore.

I can sort of see where you're coming from with the "45". I agree a wholly open age "A" team is overdoing it but I think an U21s is a better bet so as not to see a lot of talent go to waste at 19. I'd still allow loan deals for 1 month or more but get rid of the deals where you can have a Briers, a Morley or a Delaney turn out for the odd game at a lower league club.

Maybe allow 2 over age players in the U21s - of course that's still 28 players but less impact elsewhere in the way you describe.

Personally, whilst I understand there are issues with it, I think it's the best way of getting promising youngsters playing at a higher level, crucially against men, whilst retaining the independence of lower league clubs.

I had some great nights watching the old 'A' team games at Headingley

My mate Gareth Ingham played back then so i used to go watch him each week

I recall seeing some right characters back then playing and IMO they knew their limits talent wise but were just happy turning out for Leeds
Pail Gill
Paul Worthy
Richard Pratt
Warren Wilson ( he actually kept swopping between signing for Leeds and Hunslet)
Mark Wilson
Phil Turner
Richard Gunn
Russ Sowden
Phil Owen
Mark Massa
Neil Lean
David Healey
Wayne Heron
Colin Cooper
Mark Campbell
Eddie Rombo
Pat Mitchell
Colin Maskill (Maskill went on to play plenty of first team games as a hooker but played regularly at 13 in the A team )


Any players that i have ommitted?

Steve Pilgrim!!

Stuart Chick!

He was a Lancashire sprint champion, you know.

Leigh Deakin
????? Render

I used to watch the Cas A team back then on a Friday night & loved it. But thinking back to those players gracing the hallowed turf & looking at the list above sort of argues against the logic in having one.