Surely the former? It would mean though that virtually all the players in International teams will end up playing in the NRL.

At least the next World Cup will be competitive.

Surely the real issue is how good the England players are not what league they play in. If the NRL is the best league and the England players are playing in that environment then its good for them, it takes away some of the advantage the Aussie players usually have of being used to playing in a tougher environment.

In football countries like Brazil, Argentina have been successful despite having most of their international players playing in foreign leagues.....then you get sides like France and Netherlands where usually its their younger up and comers in their national squad who play in the domestic league, once they have been noticed they end up in the big leagues.

So the next superstar halfback gets picked up by London, playing behind a beaten pack, losing every week and wondering whether he'll get paid some months. How long before he leaves for RU or Aus? Then youngsters see that kind of thing going on and it puts them off. Sod that! It works in the NFL because there is a massive talent pool, not much direct competition from other sports/countries and the clubs are rich. We are in a vastly different situation and need to do everything we can to attract and retain the best players, otherwise quality, crowds and sponsorship will all suffer IMO

And then a Wigan or Warrington pay London for said halfback and the money filters into the lesser teams.

He means that all our best players will move to Oz. That may be fine if you wish to see England with a much better chance of winning the World Cup, but not so good if you would prefer to see high quality UK players on a week to week basis over here. I don't wish to lose the likes of Hill, Myler, Ratchford etc because I enjoy watching them play. Yes, it's an exaggeration, because some top quality players will not wish to move. But overall it will reduce the quality of our game, which is something we can do without.

I agree with Yed. There is far too much influence from a certain Chief Exec in the West Yorks area.

I don't think when they would train would be an issue. Their training would be tuned to suit their individual circumstances and whether they were going to play U23 or not
U23's would play in a U23 comp.
My image is that more than enough players are being chucked on the scrap heap at 19 now, so I don't see that as an issue.
I don't the set up for U23's but the cost should be tuned to suit the circumstances.
In the past clubs have run 3 or more teams so I don't think it's an issue.

Arguably an A team would do something similar to U23's.
Also I've no problem with the dual registration path but I think this causes problems for the 'lower' club and a fair deal of resentment - if I was playing for the partnership club it's hardly likely to generate a 'team' atmosphere with guys coming in for a couple of games and then going back to play SL.

Surely that just opens the spot for some young lads to have their chance which is what the fans want?

For years when the exchange rate was in our favour the Aussie clubs used to lose big gun players to Super League but they just brought young players through.

We always hear about how there are loads of talented youngsters at the club but they don't get given a chance - if players leave to go to the NRL maybe we will see them play for us rather than be lost to the game.

In the American draft system that can happen in theory, but in practice what the lowest team who has the first draft pick does is trade players.
So they swap round 1 pick, usually a star quarterback, for 3 round 3 picks.
In that way they get probably 9 good prospects for 3 star ones.
This in time drags the rubbish team back up.
It only works of course because even the worst team can afford to pay the wages of an entire squad, and star players if they decide to go down that route.
In order for it to work in our sport there would need to be an entire centralisation of funds.
That means all clubs hand over all revenue, and the RFL split it with the tv money equitably.
Can you imagine any of the big clubs going for that?

If we were in Oz complaining about our best players being picked off by the Brits, I would agree. The answer would be to use the youth development. Oz seems to have lots of talented youngsters coming through from what I can understand. But we have two pressure points, top players being lured away, and a much smaller pool of youngsters coming through. The change to the age groups eliminated the U15 and U 18's, essentially cutting in half the number of youngsters being trained by SL clubs. Even worse, as TS points out, the current U19's that are coming through now have nowhere to continue their development unless they can get a DR berth in the Championship - and a number of these teams don't wan't this anymore as they are looking to the new Promotion / Relegation regime of 2015.

So from a supporters pov, we are faced with falling standards from the loss of our top players, and a lower quality set of juniors coming through from the bottom. It's a mess at the moment, but even worse, a ticking bomb for the future. With SL clubs struggling to pay for their first team squad, the prospect of getting them to cough up more money (£160k) for another team at U21 or U23, doesn't look good.

I don't think you were saying the same thing when you lost Gregory to Wigan, Harris to Leeds and Scully to Saints?
FWIW I do agree that transfer fees did/do help some clubs to survive or reinvest.

And I do agree with Smith that 19 is too young to make a permanent decision on a player. Personally I would go back to U18's and U21's (with three overage players allowed in the U21's)
I know there is a cost to it, but it's a hit that the game needs to take, and maybe one of those age groups could be centrally funded.

I think may be there isn't as much talent available in Oz as we are led to believe these days who want to play RL ,especially when our top players are being head hunted by NRL clubs.