Rochdale should benefit from this deal as well then.
I don't know if its similar to football but players being recalled from loan deals happens as well.
I suspect this is another storm in a tiny tea cup. IMO

No they don't.
However most clubs will sign em.
The effect of that is a club could field 2 completley different teams from different sets of SL clubs in March to say September.

The RFL know club chairmen in the championships will have to go with this as they know that at least 1 club will so the rest follow like lemmings, it forces the others to do if they want to remain competitive.

Basically it'll be Championship clubs fielding SL players who would have played A team Rugby if that level had still existed.
Unless properley regulated I don't think it'll be good news for Championship RL long term, possibly excellant news for SL clubs with big squads of players.

why bother anwering a stupid question that you already know the answer to. But go on if you insist Of course its not the governing bodies problem but who will benefit the 'big' club or the 'feeder club'? its the governing bodies problem because the idea has been 'floated' by the clubs with the most to gain, and they are? of coure the 'big' clubs which will get bigger and the smaller ones will not get the chance, things are going down the route of the Aus system and just ask what are the chances of a team in the 'city' or 'country' league getting a franchise to the premier div of Aus RL.
But if you think everythings rosy in the garden well thats up to you.

Where do I come close to saying its all rosey ? Of course it isn't.
Why is it a stupid question ? What I did was put a question forward that is fair, and so far has not been answered apart from ifs and maybes. You continue with insinuations that SL and RFL want to destroy Championship clubs, when in fact the Championship clubs want to destroy it too if that is whats happening because they are seemingly taking part at no benefit to themselves apparently.
You can't honestly say that Championship clubs have not contributed to the state they are in at the moment ? Its dog eat dog between the clubs. And the SL is everything mindset, and "oh, its not fair" mindset is still alive and kicking.

If you consider it an insinuation well thats up to you, I just make the point that any decisions made at red hall favour SL clubs, you like others read into things i post that are just not there I always call a spade a spade no hidden meanings or agendas, all the points Ive made so far about Celtic (for instance) are all out there on the message boards for all to see so if I have made the assumptions (and not proven wrong on any as yet) then also others have as well.
You will also note that I have answered your question no iffs and buts but straight I refer you to 'ITS NOT THE GOVERNING BODIES PROBLEM' now if that doesnt answer your question I dont know what will. Jenky also answered it with a straight NO, as did Starbug.
Teams like Rochdale may benefit in the short term because they have no youth team set up but again that is down to fiscal problems and nothing else.
TBH its been going on for years one way or another look at the HUDD and Whitehaven agreement re McNally (why didnt they recall him instead of Hemingway one may ask? -retorical question that one by the way).
What it will do is that the clubs who share a player can do just that share him at any time, a system (IMO) that could be dangerous for the 'lesser' club in the agreement in that if for instance that player is your sides No1 playmaker then is suddenly 'recalled' by the 'senior' club to stand in for rested players (like what has happened tonight), the only saving grace is that the player then should be able to return to the 'lesser' team without too much paperwork - one should hope/think???.
Does this now mean that an end will be done with the 'signing deadline'? or a player being cuptied? all questions that in all the 'bumf' iv'e seen or heard of so far has not been answered, this seems to me to be a typical RFL reaction to a problem caused by SL clubs losing too many players because they (and rightly so) want first team rugby, something which only the SL sides can afford to do especially (as rumoured) that these dual contractees full salary doesn't count in the salary cap, which means..... more money for them to spend on overpriced antipodean players.
No team in Rugby League does anything that doesn't give them 'an edge' thats RL life.
I dont consider it to be a 'feeder' system but what it can mean is that SL clubs can sign a 'lesser' teams better players and have that player on tenterhooks wondering IF he is going to play for the SL clubs and him being dissilusioned if he doesn't, for me that is not good manmanagement or player development unless he benefits by better coaching facilities which I would hope does happen but again not made clear anywhere.
It will be made to seem to work until the next bright idea from Red Hall.

Fred
You make a good point about Hudds Re-calling Hemingway but leaving the darling at Haven............Collusion springs to mind...............

Thanks for detailed post.
But I thought you was contradicting yourself in the post b4 this regarding blame to RFL. I also took offence about the "stupid question" bit.
The fact teams don't have to make deals with SL clubs, or can make deals to benefit themselves as well does not mean its a here we go again scenario of RFL/SL forcing clubs to become feeder clubs as gets posted on this mb. As I said previously, it works fine in football where players are loaned and recalled - its upto the club that takes the risk if it happens. At the end of the day temp loan deals happen anyway so no big deal.
Also the answers where given to my question but not just a NO, because that wouldn't fit in with the Feeder club plot.
Anyway nighty night

both club chairmen are the best of pals, and the rochdale chairman got the ball rolling on this occasion.


as was said in an earlier post, hornets have no junior set up, so its an easy option for them


for clubs with real ambition though, thats a different story.

Thanks for this.

I have no problems at all with any change of rules but to change them without informing Clubs players and fans is rather offputting to say the least, I apologise for the 'stupid question' the 'stupid' wasn't refering to you personally just the question

just so you know we are not a feeder club to leeds or Hudds

with mcnally he signed for them from us and the contract stated he was loaned back to haven for the 2009 season , thats why he hasnt been recalled

as for leeds we have agreed a 12 month tie up with leeds where our players will train with them from time to time,and thier coachs will come up and help out in coaching etc
any players they want to loan out we may and i say MAY have first dibs on, and they signed Kyle amor who is not a dual registration player he is a leeds player again part of the deal was we kept him for 2009, he goes to leeds for pre season in November and no doubt he may make the first team straight away, he may not and come back to haven on loan or maybe a club nearer leeds as he is moving down there

think your all getting a bit paranoid about this

when you get loan players you take a risk of them being recalled

If WE are paranoid why do you have to justify your club not being a feeder a club when you have just given a prime example of one me thinks you 'shout' too loud and soon to be believed.

i posted this arguement last week, our league (champ & champ1) is
going just like the aussie league, we are to be feeder clubs to the SL
clubs , thats how the rlf ( a load of old fuddy duddys ) with flat caps
& whippets, (eg; 1960s folk) want OUR rugby league to be,.
I CAN REMEMBER WHEN THE aussies WANTED THEIR LEAGUE TO BE LIKE OURS. now because of all the old timers (with whippets & flat caps ) running OUR rugby league we have fell behind.

Why don't they (the RFL) just come out and say it? If explained correctly and could be proven that it would be good for the GAME and not just the upper echelons (sp?) of it then all would be satisfied, but it would seem the RFL have become an organisation that make the Masons seem like 'an open house'.

Heres a radical plan, all SL clubs MUST have a (real) English (European) coach, but are allowed to have an Antipodean advisor.
All SL clubs must have European (thats players born in Europe) only. That league be restricted to ages 21 - 29 before and after that age Champioship clubs must have them and a 'draft system' introduced.

All Antipodeans must ply their trade in the Championship leagues, with the same quota rules as the SL clubs have now,thereby making those leagues somewhere where the young players prior to SL can learn off them both by word and deed, and all this to be funded by the TV money with strict control over the antipodeans so that no Championship club could become a super club having all the 'best' players.
Yes the door to SL would be shut for the championship clubs but isnt that what the RFL and SLE want now?
Still have a franchise system but a REAL one instead of this 'old boys club' that is now.

Now would that make our national game stronger after all the current system aint working. Stupid idea? decide yourself cause like I said the current system isnt doing much for the national game for isnt that what we are all in it for