IMO they need to bring in something that stops the richer clubs (or more accurately the clubs with rich owners/chairmen) just stealing all the best young talent by offering them more money. With the salary cap rules as they are and young players not being limited (as far as I know), this is always going to happen.

Or at least that's the line coming from the club.

From what I saw of him he looked a top propect, especially with ball in hand, maybe not yet ready for the SL but with the amount of FBs at the club he probably saw a better chance as being Hodgson's understudy at Wire.

A line I'm inclined to believe when it comes to either Warrington or Huddersfield as it wouldn't be the first time. (For reasons I've outlined above)

I understand that it was a lot more. And the same in the case of Wardle.

In the case of wardle I've heard we offered 14k and hudds upped it to 26k. If thats accurate then think bulls were correct to let him go. 26k is a bottom end 1st team player level of salary and whilst wardle looks a decent prospect he isnt worth that much yet. We'll have a salary structure in place and once we pay one player over the odds we'll have every other one knocking on the door wanting an upgrade. In the same period we've let wardle,tate and hellewell go we've also tied o'brien down to a long deal and also whitehead after he proved himself at 1st team level. At the end off the day the club sees a lot more of these players than we do and we've got to trust the valuation the club puts on them. If other cash rich clubs are prepared to pay over the odds theres little we can do about it tbh.

You also have to remember that there is a huge gulf between the academy and SL. So just because a player looks class playing against the academy, there's no guarantee that he'll be able to step up to the next level and repeat that sort of ability at SL level. e.g. Andy Smith, he was tearing teams apart in the Bulls academy but he's never made it as a SL player. Karl Pryce is another example of a player who could dominate in the lower grade but hasn't really done anything in SL.

But I agree that the RFL does need to do something to protect clubs from having their best juniors snagged by clubs with big pocketed backers, but that also needs balancing with something that prevents those same sort of clubs from hoarding players

I agree. As do a number of Cumbrians I would imagine when Donaldson left. I was particularly chuffed when Cas were generously rewarded when Hudson, Lynch & Platt joined after relegation.

I actually think Andy Smith could have made it in Super League had his attitude been right. But it quite clearly wasn't.

Karl Pryce though I agree is the perfect example of it. I remember watching him play for our academy over at Fartown against the Huddersfield academy. He absolutely ripped them to pieces and they just couldn't handle him. He was stepping out of tackles and barging people away with hardly any effort. And yet in Super League, he just looks a lazy plodder IMO.

On a note unrelated to the actual topic, I was actually sat near Eorl Crabtree in the clubhouse that evening at Fartown too. I didn't actually know who he was (Hudds had only recently been promoted and I wasn't familiar with their fringe players) but the bloke was so bloody huge you just knew he was a player of some sort.

The difference being they left clubs that were in lower leagues for a Super League club. Let's be honest, with our financial situation recently, it can't have been about money....

I know what you're saying and there is a degree of it from every club. But two clubs particularly benefit from the lack of salary cap rules at that level meaning that someone rich can just throw money at young players. Exactly what the salary cap was brought in to stop at a first team level.


(Incidentally I was talking about this months ago before Wardle and Helliwell, so it's not sour grapes about them)

Do they have Peter Ridsdale on the board at Huddersfield? 26k looks too much for Wardle (although we only saw a little bit of him)

Craziness if true

IMO the quota exemption for young players should only be for players produced by the club they are at. That way the sugar daddy clubs can't just go around cherrypicking other clubs' youngsters.

If the figures reported earlier in the thread are anything like being true, then who can blame the players?

The difference being the Bulls benfited to the detriment of the other clubs. Or are you suggesting lower league clubs don't suffer as much? (I know you aren't really).

Not what I said at all. Again, read the bit below. I'm not saying this just because we've lost out and I'm not saying it's different if we do it. In fact, that's not the point I'm making at all, so if you're just going to ignore that, then I'll just ignore the comments.

I'm ignoring you first.

Anyway. On the subject of Helliwell, if he ends up working with Brett Hodgson as a kind of mentor, it could actually make him even better. Taking away the money issues, it would surely benefit his long term game a lot to work under Hodgson for 2 years. I can't see him getting much first team action unless Hodgson, Riley and Hicks are injured, but it may make him a better player when he eventually does get a chance.