Who?

Or is it just to support the current salary cap debate going on over in the nrl.

As for the salary cap exemption debate - personally I think that 1 per team, 50% of wage exempt from the salary cap would be a good way to go. But would have to be first pro RL contract to stop any shenanigans that would doubtless ensue otherwise.
I think it would encourage teams to go for Union players who sadly are more well known in the media than our own players. I don't think there would be much "damage" to youth development since it would be giving the game a higher profile.

There seems to be two schools of thought on the salary cap:

1. Its there to stifle clubs in order to make an even competetion and allow poor clubs to compete with the well off, thus essentially penalising said big clubs. Folk with this opinion constantly look for ways around the cap, examptions, or just things to blame on it.

2. (and this is mine) If there wasn't a salary cap then the combination of running a sports club as a successful business with the general lack of money in sport would mean, sooner or later (probably), every club would end up oversreached financially and looking at insolvency, thus causing an awful lot more damage to the sport than losing Chris Ashton to RU.

quade cooper.

bingo.

The problem is that 'flexibility' is normally a byword for 'no rules at all'. As with quota rules. Once you start down the path of exemptions for one thing, its hard to argue against others - until you end up with a set of rules in name only.

ot their boards on this site where less posters than the quins board bother to turn up......might be something to do with the myopic stance of one or two regulars on that board....though I might be wrong.........though I doubt it

As regards kids develpment would it be possible to set up fictious(as of yet) youth teams, run by the Rfl partly funded by all clubs. These kids would then be trained up by top coaches with no professional affiliation to any of the clubs. Then when they reach an age they go into a draft system similar to NFL. Call it a school of rugby if you will, and all the best candidates get a 'work' placement. Kids stay with this rugby school until they are 18. Surely a better way of keeping the kids in the game ?

it has been, and that is disappointing.

But as i said, i cant see how the system currently proposed in Aus isnt much much better than what we have now

two problems with this,

1) many many players make their first team debut before 18

2) i believe competition in youth development drives innovation and evolution

I,d forgot I,d even posted on this thread

As you have posted bill , yes some of the lads who have gone through our scholarship are now at other clubs , playing 18 s , reserves and including some on f t contracts

Apparently yes we are now going to continue with some form of junior coaching but not an accredited scholarship

Personally any extra coaching done by pro clubs should be encouraged

1) 18 is only an upper limit, they could be up for draft at 16

2) you still have competiton, you go into a team based on where you were born , you have pre set areas (similar to town teams or schools boundaries you already have), with strict boundaries, these teams then play each other, this is also the basis of how players get picked, you could have 6 age groups 11's 12's 13's 14's 15's and 16-18.

When they turn 16 they are eligable for draft, the bottom clubs getting 1st pick.

16 year olds arent going to move from Castleford to Wrexham for an academy contract.

There is also no benefit from to these RFL youth teams to innovate and take risks. It changes the emphasis of the competition from providing the players for the top level, to being the best youth team. An academy coaches job right now is to provide the best players for its full team not to create the best youth team