Quote: Pound 4 Wrighty "Id go with that, but instead of U19's id go to U21's.'"
I'd be really precious about it. Yes I'd make it under 21's and scrap the under 19's. In my opinion the under 19's tend to end up playing against the same teams as they did at under 16's and in some cases further back, thus they are not developing new skills against new opponants.
I would however have some very strong restrctions.
1: All players must be registered to the club as either academy or full time - the only exceptions being trialists or British players taken on a full season loan. The idea is to give the Under 21's a real team identity and not just a dropping off point.
2: Only four over 21's may play in any single game.
3: No non British players may be used as part of the over 21's contingent and the only non British players allowed to participate must be under 21. We cannot see it used as a vehicle to get NRL players fit, they simply shouldn't need it.
4: The competition needs properly marketing with full fixture played at a fixed time - which IMHO would be a Wednesday.
There is always the oppertunity for abuse, however a team that would currently have the likes of Anakin, Hall, Owen and Walker in it's ranks combined with the up and comers would still be very attractive to watch IMHO whilst not being overly physical for the younger players.
My biggest gripe in the pastwas the total lack of marketing done by the SL and RFL regarding a second string competition and was typical of the lazy short sighted couldn't give a toss attitude of Red Hall. The competition will never be profitable but it could less expensive with a bit of effort. A sponsor and some central funding etc could be obtained and I suspect attendances would rise with the addition of first teamers and a good competition format.
Just my opinion.
.)
