Says Lee Radford , as players like Shaul could well be be lost to the game under the current structure. Used to love the odd midweek Alliance game, would be better in the summer too. Interesting suggestion. www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... z2PNdfseXg

Says Lee Radford , as players like Shaul could well be be lost to the game under the current structure. Used to love the odd midweek Alliance game, would be better in the summer too. Interesting suggestion. www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... z2PNdfseXg

Something has to give everyone can see the holes in the current system. This was touched upon on backchat were Barry Mac also stated how Peacock would of been lost under the current system. Got to change but not sure how.

The alliance will be York, give it a year or 2.

Agree that something has to change as there's going to be a lot of players in Shaul's position and it's going to affect a lot of teams including the Championship sides. You can't expect your dual-registration team (York in our case) to not make signings on the off chance the SL club will send them someone for the positions they need.

The other benefit of the Alliance used to be post-injury run-outs for returning first teamers and more meaningful match fitness retention for older squad players.

Like the sound of this already. So how would everyone like to see a new Alliance set up? Would you have this replace dual-registration or have them run side by side? I'd go for the side by side option but have players pushing for first team spots battling for places in the Alliance and use dual-registration for those that still need developing that don't look ready for first team action yet.

Is it a salary cap issue or simply finances in general why we don't have "over age" competition?

There was a lot to be said about the "A" team. Including some big gates at the Boulevard back in the day. Having been to see the 19s on Saturday it is obvious to me that some are simply making up the numbers. Where as a "A" team would allow the late developers to come through and also play alongside some experienced pros to learn from in a less pressured environment.

I would allow clubs to have the regulars in this squad to be exempt from salary cap (can of worms I know but its for the good of the game).

Thats how it looks to me as well.

Maybe say that all players in this squad under 21 are exempt from the cap unless they play a certain number of games for the first team in which case they get added to the cap?

Are you aware how the current cap works?

Radford is right that the current system isnt adequate but he is wrong that the answer is a return to the old A-team system. As many will remember the old A-teams used to end up full of career A-teamers and amateur lads drafted in.
The correct system is the one they moved away from a couple of years ago. An under 21s competition with 3 over age players allowed. An under 18s competition. An under 16s competition and and under 15s competition.
The reason these competitions are no longer in place is pure and simply down to finance and nothing whatsoever to do with improving the development of our future stars.
To my mind, these competitions should be re-introduced and if some Clubs choose not to run sides at all levels then that is their choice but long term they will fall behind.

No. Maybe I should have read up on it before posting.

Very interesting and well-thought out piece, IMO. I agree with most of what he says.
But finances are a very pressing issue - can clubs afford to have 'reserve' teams? That is a good number of extra players. If they're part-time is there much point in the modern game? You're just duplicating the Championships. Crowds might be okay, but only at knock down prices I suspect.
Also for every 1 Jamie Peacock there will be 10 or 20 Average Joes who remain average. Do we really want them all to hang about on rubbish wages until they're 23 or 24, when they could be earning more and making a sustainable career for themselves doing something else? Unfair and unrealistic perhaps.