If all teams need players to one get up to speed or 2 get back to full fitness after been injured or 3 just dropped till they get their form back bring back A teams they worked well before

I saw some very good A team matches down Holderness Road. Don't think such matches will return due to cost though.

Aye, most SL clubs can't afford second teams and most Championship clubs can barely afford a first team.

Dual reg is limited to 5 players next year, rather than a limit per game and all the fed-trained players in a SL squad going out as and when it suited - as I understand it, anyway. That should stop stuff like Championship teams being used to help experienced SL pros get up to speed after an injury. It's good that we can have 5 dr with fax and 5 with Gateshead.
It'll be interesting to see who Halifax choose (and it'd be sensible to give them the choice, along with advice on who'll suit their needs, rather than 'suggesting' players to suit ourselves, IMO). There's a balance needed between quality and likely regularity of availability.

Aye, and that sums it up.

I would rather not compete next year, we know who's going to be at the top of the league anyway, but stay alone and build the club back up properly. We've had a few poor seasons of late, I can manage another one or two. Up The Fax!

Just reading the Fax Coach's take on it and with 25 players contracted it sounds like they're looking to add occasional quality rather than use it for depth.

There's a contingency whereby they would retain access to the players that had played enough games for them to be eligible, if we both end up in the middle 8, but they couldn't play against us. That is a bit iffy, but I guess so long as it is the same rules for all, everybody knows how things stand. Also if it means the players would continue to be eligible for both clubs, you could get a player playing alternate weeks for them and us, which'd be odd in the same competition. If it means they stay there, then that'd eat into our depth and I really can't see us going for that, especially if it is Green and Cox rather than for example (and genuinely no disrespect) Esslemont and Holker.
It's good they've planned for it, but dual-reg within the same 8 would look a bit odd.

Dress it up how you like, it's just wrong.

So many ways for this to be abused to manipulate the competition, and that's before we consider the loss of identity for 'fax.

All the good solutions cost money though, and there ain't much of that.

Hudd-Shay clearly prioritises identity over competitiveness. There'd be plenty of others that'd put up with this but be hacked off by another disappointing season on the field. That's the unpleasant choice their board faces. Not that this guarantees success, obviously - but sadly that's the way of things. And there but for the cash Hudge go we.

It is another fiddly RFL rule though. As you said earlier, why not just use loan deals? they can be for as little as a month anyway.

Because the loan system doesn't enable the parent club to abuse the system in the way DR does, and like it or lump it, that's what DR was set up to do.

If the was its purpose, then it arguably isn't an abuse.

SL has generally treated those clubs outside it pretty shoddily, I can't deny that.

No movement is allowed after the end of the regular season of 23 games.

Stay where you are or go back to your parent club, that's it.

The current system simply calls the integrity of the game into question.

The abandonment of the A teams/reserve grade has been shown to be idiotic and short sighted and should be reversed at the earliest opportunity. The cost argument does not hold water with modern contracted players in squads of 30 plus players. Indeed Rovers for one, made money from the home games back in the day even when they had to pay the players match-day payments.

With the pool of players available to professional RL clubs in this country shrinking by the year we can ill afford to continue with a system that sees too many players lost to the game too early and others denied any chance. The A team always provided gems for most clubs most of which would never get a look in the modern system not to mention the benefits of easing players back after injury and/or providing fringe people with regular rugby.

I doubt there's money to be made. A lot has changed since back in the day and it's not like many turn up to see the U19s even with it being free or very cheap for passholders, iirc.

30 players in a squad isn't enough, with perhaps 4 or 5 likely to be injured at any given time from round 10 or so onwards. Not as well as a senior academy.

But dual reg doesn't make money either. Going from under-20s, with some overage players to under-19s has made the already big step up to SL even bigger. That system will have cost more, but not that much, I wouldn't have thought. With hindsight that does seem like a mistake and the cost-saving solution to the problem has maybe just created a bigger problem (albeit elsewhere). Tbf, some of the richer SL clubs did want to retain the previous system.

A team games were good rovers and hull got good gates when they played each other I remember seeing Gavin Miller when he had just come to us, play in a A team and my mate at the time said who is this monkey who we have signed what a player he turned out to be

Ey up mate. That is just about the most spot on post that I have come across on this topic. Well said.