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.

Pretty sure there is something on the cap or you get extra spend for fielding more developed youngsters that have come through the academy. Sure it's something like 20k extra per fielded player?

Is the Lan deal completely dead? There's been nothing from Leigh, only Lam Snr?

Does Hastings count on quota as he has played for GB/England?

Think the deal is dead, but no word of the extension, maybe do one more year and try and get a NRL deal.

Hastings is a non fed player, only way off is if they played youth rugby here.

And the amount of good it does them.

Are you appealing to clubs’ better natures, or sense of duty… suggesting that they should do the ‘right thing’? That’s nice and everything, but not a sound basis for developing a policy or system that might work.

The issue is that most clubs would be investing at the expense of other key parts of their business, and are not guaranteed any direct benefit. Even if they produce good players, they’ll be picked off.

The return on investment on player development is really bad. So, unless you can subsidise it with money you can’t spend elsewhere (i.e., you’re a relatively rich club constrained to some degree by the the salary cap), or you have system that is able to accept a poor direct return (same principle as a key public service), it won’t work very well.

It doesn't only benefit the rich clubs, we're forever told how much money Rovers have but your youth development is embarrassing, Warrington have finally realised this after years of trying to buy success. Hull haven't exactly been flush with money since covid and we've always steadily brought through players.

I agree more money and development is needed in grass roots, a more competitive reserve league is needed aswell, the teams with the better academics need to blood their best prospects against seasoned pros whilst allowing them to still play in the clubs systems, instead of loaning players out left, right and centre.

Clubs should always be rewarded for bringing players through and giving them a shot at SL and it will help increase the player pool and keep more players in the game.

Again I disagree, the return is really good if you get it right, no coincidence the most successful teams have strong academies.

Definitely don't have to be rich, we certainly haven't been and have invested and finally seeing the benefits.

But yes, also think clubs should be doing for the greater good of the game and these new quota rules won't help the game at all.