No im not, im saying that it would be up to a coach to build the best squad they could under these considerations.


the number isnt that big. You are massively over-estimating it again.

If a player isnt good enough to get a spot, they arent good enough to get a spot.

No it doesnt. If this were the case we could simply pay players centrally and share them between clubs, but as we know there are many many variables which go into which team and for how much a player decides to play.

Ellis for instance choosing to play for leeds for less than he was offered at Wakefield. Hardly sharing the talent. In fact in this instance the SC only entrenched the positions

I disagree, i would take all those players over Penny.

And that is where the quality of coach comes in. If he thinks he can get better value from Penny he is free to pick him up

We're in agreement there. The development of young players is not an overnight thing though is it and clubs are at different stages of their youth development maturity.

Hull KR for example being relative newcomers to SL are still a bit behind many other clubs, while we have brought some players through to the SL squad from our youth development system, by all accounts our best prospects are still in the under 18's (where we have more or less had parity in recruitment with our more established neighbours) so it may be a few years yet before this system (or at least this aspect of it) would be entirely fair.

Perhaps it might be more viable if the intention to implement this system was declared for some stage in the future, allowing all clubs a resonable time to bring their youth development system to a broadly similar level.

Even then there is still the prospect of wealthy teams signing up the best young talent because they can pay more than other clubs in that area.

I dont disagree that Hull KR may be behind in this respect. And we all know the reason why.

So, if we are to 'play fair' they should be behind the other clubs in the league. Yes they should be given time to get their house in order, but whilst they are doing that they dont deserve to be given a 'leg up' at the expense of other SL clubs.


waiting for Hull KR to catch up isnt really a sensible or fair option.
competition for youth isnt a bad thing, and i cant imagine 'huge' amounts of money being thrown at 16/17 year olds which is when they would need to be getting them

I used Hull KR as an example. The same would apply to any newly/recently promoted team. I imagine that Widnes or Leigh currently cannot compete for the best young players in their area and would not be able to until being in SL for 4 or 5 years or at least it would take that long before they saw the benefit of that in their SL squad.

I can easily imagine enough being thrown at the cream of the young talent for some clubs to be disadvantaged by more cash rich neighbours. I don't suppose it would take a fortune to persuade a really good young player to travel a few miles further.

true that.
But then again, isnt that what we want? the best athletes/youngsters in an area being tempted to league?
just saying like..

Well that is another side to the argument and one which I hadn't previously considered. Yes, if the elimination of a monetary cap resulted in young players choosing RL over another sport that could be a positive.

My argument was solely considering the lads who play RL and will probably only play RL. In which case I'm not convinced that say Leeds wouldn't be able to use their cash resources to entice the best young players in West Yorkshire with the promise of higher salaries both immediately and in SL. Of course these players would then "cost" Leeds the same points as the "lesser" players that Wakey/Cas would bring through, being the ones left after Leeds had cherry picked the best.

I'm not saying it would happen, just that it could and the history of RL has shown if a club can "buy" an advantage, then they will regardless of the long term consequences for the game.

it would indeed, at that always would and will be the case. I dont mind them being given 4 or 5 years to see that benefit, what i object to is them being allowed to buy loads in overseas players and pay lots of money to them so they can finish ahead of other SL teams who are investing in youth, and giving them the chance in the first team. Harlequins for example have spent the last 3 or 4 years pretty much struggling because of the investment they have made in the youngsters which is only now even beginning to show any benefit, Hull KR meanwhile have brought through next to no youngsters, have lots and lots of overseas players and seen the play-offs. I dont think that is really 'fair'.

exactly, it doesnt take a fortune, or even a meaningful amount of money. Pay isnt really the issue at that age, the differences will be pretty much miniscule. What will convince players is the facilities, the size of the club, the coaches, their history of giving youngsters a go all these things will be much more important to any 17 year old who actually has the mentality to make it than what will in effect be maybe £1k

this will happen. I have no doubt about it, clubs will be forced to scout from all areas (which to a degree they do now) and that will mean overlap and it will mean competition. This isnt a bad thing, it will force us to look in places we havent looked at before, look in new geographical areas, get scouts down at athletics meets looking at the sprinters, get them in gyms looking at wrestlers and boxers.
These things are good for the sport.

and as i said the wage difference is going to be miniscule, our young players dont get paid enough to make a real difference

Hull KR have conformed, at all times, with the requirements regarding players as set out by the RFL and been able to contribute to the health of the competition by fielding (for the most part) a strong team. Why do you have a problem with that?

If you want to take a naive view of the situation thats your choice.

we both know that Hull KRs return in regards to youth development is because they have prioritised their first team, where they needed to receive dispensation for overseas players, over youth development.
The reasons for this isnt the issue.

The point I am making is it is very much less than ideal for clubs who have invested in youth development to lose out because of that.

Under this system a club like Hull KR would be behind the 8 ball in terms of recruitment in comparison to a club like Quins until the youth development was of a similar level.

Where is the incentive to make these long term and possibly unpopular with the home support, but never the less integral, investments in developing more youngsters if your success isnt dependent on it?

I dont agree with Smokey about this but that point is true.
Its a fact that all the best SL teams are big homegrown/British core with 4 or 5 top class imports. You cant buy a team of aussies and get anywhere near realistically challenging.

But that is the point of the reducing quota and increasing home grown requirement and the consequence of franchise applications being awarded on a range of criteria.

It is ludicrous to criticise one club for taking one strategy (while conforming to all the RFL requirements) and praise another for taking a different strategy (while conforming to all the RFL requirements).

Hull KR could have taken a different approach (promoting youngsters not ready or not good enough) which would have been cheaper. That would have made the financial side of the next bid stronger at the same time weakening the on field contribution, it's all swings and roundabouts. And the point you are completley missing here is that with a range of different criteria highlighting the importance of different areas of the business it is not surprising at all that at different times different clubs will have different priorities.

The real test of whether Hull KR have got the balance right will be if the get awarded another franchise.

But when teams start applying for exemptions its a joke imo.
Anyway I laid out my stall:
Maximum 5 OVERSEAS (not all these stupid exemptions) players.
10%ish decrease on current cap for homegrown players.
10% increase on current cap for overseas players.
Gradual increase in cap after 2012.

Best way to go, you know it. I know it. My dog even knows it.

No it isnt. We should be praising teams for making that investment in the long term stability of the sport, We should be praising them when the give a shot to youngsters, we should be praising them for putting the structures in place to give the best chance to the youngsters of their area, and we should criticise them when they dont, we should criticise them when they hide behind overseas players, exemptions and dispensations to cover up for the fact they havent invested in youth.


They will have different priorities, they always will. But after 100 years to not have a decent youth policy already in place is embarrassing. We should make youth development a higher priority, force it to be a higher priority for all clubs

thats fairly unambitious, at some point as a sport we are going to need to move on from our ambition being just to survive to improving and growing