honest question,not a dig at any club or anything...


but what is the RFL's stance on feeder clubs??


for example....could wigan take over leigh and run the club as a defacto reserve team,still called leigh of course??...or salford & swinton,leeds & hunslet,bradford & keighley etc....



just asking

Ouch. Desperate

It would likely benefit the lower league clubs. But what benefit do the SL clubs get?

After all, if they take over those clubs, they take on those clubs financial responsibilities and given the lack of money in the game surely the clubs without the big, financial backers would be in a worse position.

Leave Keighley alone!
It's as if Wakefield is a feeder club to Shudds! All they ever do is take our players, most of their team is ex Wakefield!

I'd rather chop a toe off than become Wigans feeder club.

I think it would be best for super league clubs to use championship and league 1 compete at an higher level than the under 20's. Isn't this what happens in the NRL? I think George Burgess plays for South Sydneys feeder club North Sydney Bears.

Quite right to....you could become our bitches though

The Skolars are a good example of clubs having mutual goals. May come to fruition next season.

Completely disagree. It would benefit the super league clubs and pull the heart out of the feeder team. It should never ever be brought in as a serious option. If clubs do not have a measure of independence then they wont be worth following and what will that do for them? Forcing 100 year old clubs with a proud history to become vassal clubs to former rivals just because they are at this stage in history in the right place at the right time is offensive and unreasonable. There are ways both clubs can have a beneficial relationship without ripping the heart out of one of them.

If you were creating a system from scratch then you would definitely have feeder clubs since there are big benefits to the "elite" club in terms of player development and benefits to the feeder club in terms of financial subsidy.

However, as Chris Dalton points out, you can't go taking established lower league teams and forcing them to become out and out feeder clubs. There has to be an independent lower league system. If there were to be an additional feeder club comp with new additional clubs as feeder clubs then that might be acceptable. But I highly doubt there are the players, supporters and money available for such a comp.

A feeder club system has often been used as a reason why the Aussies produce better players, and it is at least part of the reason why they do. But in my opinion the best thing the RFL could do in this country is to once and for all sort out the amateur game. Since it is consistently failing to produce players with pro clubs academies having to teach the basic skills to far too many academy players.

How will a club not be worth following? If we retain the same P&R rules we have now, there's no reason that the lower league club wouldn't benefit. They would be in a stronger position to get themselves moved to the top table given they'd have a better class of player in the team and would therefore have the chance at silverware. Success is a contributing factor to getting more people watching

If we have rules were clubs only remain a feeder team while outside of SL and lose that status if they get a licence to join the top division then what's the problem? They should have a stronger academy set up given the help they're likely to have gotten from their parent club so would be in a better position to be competitive in SL.

There's also the point regarding player retention. I don't just mean one club hoarding youth players, I mean keeping players in the game and increasing the overall size of the player pool. If there's more than one routing into playing, the more players we'll be able to keep in the game.

Feeder teams have no independence. They have no drive. They are there for the benefit of the club they are feeding and for that reason alone. This being considered how are they going to be in charge of whether they get promoted? What if their parent club doesn't let them? What kind of state is their academy going to be in one the parent team takes all their best youngsters and they do get promoted?

If we're actually talking about feeder teams and not good relationships between clubs, you can't talk about promotion and youth setups, they are at the mercy of someone else. As for how a club will not be worth following, how much motivation do you think fans are going to get following a team whose purpose is merely to get players ready for a different, higher club? One, they might as well follow that club. Two, that club is going to tinker with your team against the best needs of your club. They will insist you throw players in to make them ready, insist players get match fitness by playing for you, even if you don't need them. Your club is merely there for their purposes. That is not worth watching from a fans perspective.

We support teams which represent something like our communities, we want them to improve their lot, taking promotion away was bad enough. Taking away their independence, that's another nail in their coffin.

Now that's not to say a team couldn't do a deal with another which guaranteed to give their youngsters experience before they are ready for super league or even discounted ticketing schemes for season ticket holders of both clubs or whatever. But the emphasis must be on equal rights and to the benefit of both clubs and so both clubs must be independent.

At the start of the season, Wigan U20's beat London Skolars by a massive scoreline. The U20's comp is probably a better standard than the Championship 1

Lots of teams would beat Skolars,Gateshead,Skorpions by massive score lines , the gap between those three and the rest of Championship 1 is huge

Even so , your point is what ?