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.

Is this maybe why the competitions were scrapped? They're trying to keep the playing field level for all clubs?

We're missing the point here, why should Shaul be replaced by McKinnon, Gentle said he'd pick players on form, Shaul ignited our turnaround at Wakey when it looked like they might put 30-40 points past us.

The U19's is wrong, but using Shaul as an example worries me, is Radford really exposing a different issue, that Gentle, for whatever reason, is picking "favourites"?

Possibly. I would argue that Clubs with strong youth structures shouldnt have to lose out in order not to leave some clubs behind though. If it costs £200k to run a junior side and a club cant afford it then take it out of the first team spend.
Taking Rovers as an example. We signed 9 of last seasons scholarship team on full time contracts when they left school last year. We couldnt afford it out of our Academy budget so their wages come out of Craig Sandercocks first team squad budget. Short term pain certainly but long term we should benefit.

McDonnell not McKinnon. Wade left last year .

Didn't think that Radford was raising a "favourites" issue myself. McDonnell's been playing well for us so far IMO so Shaul would have had to sit and wait for his chance. That came Monday and I think based on that performance that he took it and deserves the chance to keep his place in the side this week. Especially if McDonnell is still not 100% fit.

Whilst I agree with the u15's, u16's, u18's and u20's I don't like the 3 overage players rule and much prefer the dual reg but understand it will take a couple of seasons to fine tune it.

Sounds sensible and fair.



I'd like to see more clubs doing this if finances are an issue. Not only would it benefit each club long term but the game as a whole.

Not as it was, but IMO they could easily fix it. Cap how many games overage players with a certain number of first team appearances or over a certain age can play, include a further provision for an absolute maximum age, things like that.

i txt radders about this morning and he said its a ferking joke the games going to lose so much talent.

Now forgive me for being a bit nostalgic, but for me, the idea of having an A Team years ago served as 2 fold .
1 it was to give kids a chance to learn the game from pros who were maybe not quite passed their sell by date.
2 and more importantly in my opinion,was the fact that it gave injured payers returning the chance to get some game time under their belts,its certainly not going to be easy for he likes of Ellis coming back after 3 months out and him being match straight away.It just doesn,t happen like that.
Another thing that gets me is why Hull don,t have any scouts looking at Amateur players any with having maybe the biggest junior leagues in the country why don,t we just take a chance with a couple of them,saints do wigan do anyway its just a thought.

Good idea. Give lee radford a ring and see what he thinks