For example if we were going to give Lam 300k, and Asi is 100k, then I would want the rest investing too. With news coming out that Sao and Carlos won't be on the quota, that gives us another couple of spots, and I would be targeting another forward

Quote: Irregs#16 "For example if we were going to give Lam 300k, and Asi is 100k, then I would want the rest investing too. With news coming out that Sao and Carlos won't be on the quota, that gives us another couple of spots, and I would be targeting another forward'" It will be 2026, before the new Quota Rule starts:- https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/r ... 15-9496495

Quote: Irregs#16 "For example if we were going to give Lam 300k, and Asi is 100k, then I would want the rest investing too. With news coming out that Sao and Carlos won't be on the quota, that gives us another couple of spots, and I would be targeting another forward'" It will be 2026, before the new Quota Rule starts:- https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/r ... 15-9496495

I don't like this new rule personally, think 7 is plenty.

Not really sure on the thinking, will just create more of a block for young players.

In SL he was a young hungry Aussie half desperate to get back to the NRL.
West's gave him a chance but if I'm correct let him go to Newcastle mid contract. He's now out of favour again, not the signing I'd be impressed with, similar to a pointless Cust signing.
I'd rather sign another young Aussie half with a point to prove and not an ageing half on good money that just doesn't seem to cut it in the NRL

Can see your point, he left mid contract as he didn't get on with Bateman from his Wigan days, only be 29 next season.

Issue with signing young promising players like we found out with Clifford is they might be here for a short time if they plsy well.

I'd rather take a chance on the promising youngster than pay and ageing Aussie half just over here for a pay day (ie Frawley) because they're not good enough to have the longevity of a career in the NRL

I made that point a few weeks ago when it was first mooted but I just can't believe how short-sighted it is.

Rules like this make me question if I want to carry on supporting the game not just Hull but in general.

So theoretically any team could field an unlimited amount of non fed players as long as they meet the criteria. 7 is to many as it stands. What's the point in developing young talent when you can take the easy option and fill your squad with average, aging overseas players.

I despair. Who the feck makes these decisions.

Part of the thinking with Lam might have been that it could have partly paid for itself by improving retention of season pass holders. There aren’t many players of that type available, which is why Lam was so attractive to Myler. There’s maybe a case that the difference between what Hull are paying trueman/would pay Asi and what was offered to Lam would be better spent on adding some much needed depth - but that doesn’t sell tickets so well, up front at least.

There are few natural incentives for most SL clubs to invest heavily in player development, hence the need for rules to encourage it if we’re determined to have a SL club-centric approach. It just feels to me like trying to push water uphill. It’s tough to fight the market. Sometimes, if something is really important, it is better to centralise responsibility rather than skew behaviours of individual (especially competing) organisations.

he main benefit with lam is he is fed trained meaning it frees up a quota spot for elsewhere plus the salary cap benefit is greater

That definitely wasn't the main benefit, it was je is one of the best halfbacks in the league.

It was a bonus though.

Instead of bringing in an extra quota rule how about something like players coming through your academy all have a 50% cap deduction, this would give clubs more incentives to invest in their youth and would massively benefit the game as a whole.

That or something along those lines would benefit the game greatly and put much more emphasis on developing your own players.

I know there is some cap exemption now but it doesn't go far enough.

Only helps the richer clubs and the richest already have good academies and hoover up the best talent. Plus the cap rules are already trying to solve numerous problems simultaneously. If you want to solve a problem you have to acknowledge what it really is. This isn’t something that can be nudged away.

So, how about a good-of-the-game approach, with investment directed to the grassroots, coaches going out more to community clubs rather than bringing players in so much at a young age? Then fewer, better, independent regional academies feeding into the semi-pro game and then, in turn, SL. Maybe with a requirement that Championship teams have a minimum number of under 23s in their match day squads, in return for better central funding.

Every club in SL could have good academies if they had invested in it the last few years. Look at Bradford and the amount of players they still produce.