: Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:25 am  

Its probably been posted but I couldnt be bothered reading all 10 pages, the franchise call will make or break in the next 2 years based upon the number of non brits in the comp, Cats excluded, and the number of juniors coming into SL.
If clubs like HKR, Salford and Hudds continue to fail then the argument for franchising dies.

: Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:29 am  

Starbug wrote:

Do coaches improve when you pay them more money ?

Or do your well paid coaches get to work with lots of the best paid juniors in you're expensive facilities

So yes if you increase the amount of numbers you start with and increase the amount of money you can offer them , and the amount of money you can offer to a higher number of coaches per player [ not forgetting your expensive grass and cones ] then with a bit of luck a high profile club will produce more better quality junior RL players than another club of lower standing

So we seem to have a reccuring theme here ?

MONEY

And how do you get money playing RL ?

By having a successful 1 st team that brings in gate reciepts and sponsorship

Chicken and egg springs to mind

all this would be relevant if we were talking massive amounts of money, we arent, it is relatively small amounts,

leeds and saints arent successful at bringing through youngsters because they are rich and high profile, they are succesful at doing it because they employed good quality people,

in early 2000's Leeds werent of the stature they are now, they werent 3 times champions they were perenial under acheivers, they werent as big or well attended as they are now and they werent splashing the cash,

they put a plan in place, they followed it, they invested in youth and it has paid hefty hefty dividends, we spent two or three years slightly worse than we could have been, and have spent the last 5 being better than we otherwise would, people clamoured for us to lose JJB, Burrow, Diskin, fans shouted for another superstar aussie to come in,

There was a couple of years of Hetherington out, and Caddick out, people banging on about how they were putting the RU side first, when this was put in place it wasn’t popular and it wasn’t immediately successful, don’t pretend it was easy because it wasn’t, it was fantastic work, in difficult circumstances, but it was the right thing to do

4 seasons ago HKR ditched thier academies and concentrated on the 1 st team

So maybe the chicken did come first this time , and given time i'm sure it will lay some eggs

And they shouldn’t have been allowed to do this, it is counterproductive and makes it harder for other clubs to make the change to relying on british players,

: Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:31 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

They do, and the also turn over a profit, having invested all this money into a cost centre,

How come leeds can do this, yet other clubs cant, even though other clubs are making a loss? Are leeds just sooooo much better run than these clubs? Do these clubs have some intrinsic to them that means they will never compete with leeds? Or are they just spending money elsewhere




They certainly have the same money to spend on the first team squad! Maybe some cuts could be made there? Maybe it would have been better sign a couple of youngsters than giving Stanley gene another contract? Maybe it would be better to get a couple of quality 16 year olds than keeping Rhys Lovegrove?

Your arguing on one hand that clubs like HKR don’t have the money and they aren’t choosing to spend it elsewhere, then that they do but they have chosen to spend it on the first team!

You also forget that Hull KR don’t exist in a vacuum, them spending more on the first team at the expense of the juniors and bring in more overseas players so they can finish higher in the league, means the teams around them need to spend more money on the first team, at the expense of the juniors and bring in more overseas players so they can finish higher in the league, meaning even clubs who can bring in these youth players, wont because they then risk losing out to HKR, finishing lower than them and not being able to ‘drive’ their business, in effect we are rewarding the clubs who don’t invest in youngsters by allowing them to invest in overseas players, then defending them for it, and punishing the clubs who do invest in youth by making it harder for them to introduce them,

: Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:31 am  

af wrote:

Hasn't always been the case. And while Leeds' good fortune to be the sole representatives in Super League of a large and affluent city (and sharing it with one feeble soccer club) does give them chance to invest, other clubs aren't n those circumstances and so face more of a struggle to build an equivalent scouting system. And this is before you get into service areas etc.

Much can be done with hard work, but not every club has the same flat track in front of them.

It wasn’t a flat track, it would be misleading to level of almost lying to say it was,

It was difficult, 2002 and 2003 were difficult years at the top for leeds, the fans weren’t behind this plan, it wasn’t easy, and it isnt easy to keep it up, it wasn’t easy when Bradford did it nor when st Helens did it,

: Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:34 am  

JB Down Under wrote:

Would I rather see a poorer club comp in the hope we unearth more talented English players eventually? An interesting question.

Its not a hope, if we put the effort in we will find them,

Its crazy to pretend we have and are discovering every talented youngster, there are plenty out there we are missing, we give more of them a chance we will find more of them

And yes

: Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:40 am  

maurice wrote:

Its probably been posted but I couldnt be bothered reading all 10 pages, the franchise call will make or break in the next 2 years based upon the number of non brits in the comp, Cats excluded, and the number of juniors coming into SL.
If clubs like HKR, Salford and Hudds continue to fail then the argument for franchising dies.

The youth development aspect of it does yes,

Im not sure it affects the business case

: Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:30 am  

af wrote:

If the first team squad isn't competitive, that club might not be a SL side in ten or even three years time.

A balance obviously has to be struck, but that will always be easier for clubs bankrolled by millionaires than it is for those that have to live by their own means.

I don't know if you're aiming that comment at Leeds but its' very wide of the mark.

When Paul Caddick came to Leeds they were insolvent and heavily in debt. They were in a worse position than most other clubs in the league. The season before they had narrowly avoided relegation.

Caddick and Hetherington put in place a business model that saw the club trade its' own way out of debt and become the commercial organisation that it is today. They did not do it by "bankrolling" the club. Caddick didn't introduce funds to the Rhinos (unlike his pet hobby the Tykes). The Rhinos were sustained on their own notwithstanding having an independently wealthy chairman.

Throughout this period they showed a commitment to junior development in the face of growing unrest from their supporters. It has paid dividends.

Of course, its' very easy for clubs who have paid scant regard to their junior development to whine about how easy it is for the big rich clubs to do it in an effort to excuse themselves.

The fact is Leeds did it when they were not successful, Leeds did it when they were very broke and the argument about service areas aside there is no excuse for any club failing to invest in a decent youth policy because whilst it doesn't reap the same short term dividends it's far cheaper than investing in overseas players.

: Thu Feb 12, 2009 12:06 pm  

G1 wrote:

I don't know if you're aiming that comment at Leeds but its' very wide of the mark. When Paul Caddick came to Leeds they were insolvent and heavily in debt. They were in a worse position than most other clubs in the league. The season before they had narrowly avoided relegation.

Caddick and Hetherington put in place a business model that saw the club trade its' own way out of debt and become the commercial organisation that it is today. They did not do it by "bankrolling" the club. Caddick didn't introduce funds to the Rhinos (unlike his pet hobby the Tykes). The Rhinos were sustained on their own notwithstanding having an independently wealthy chairman.

Would that business model have been viable anywhere else other than a booming financial centre with no other Super League club and only one soccer club, in turmoil?

Throughout this period they showed a commitment to junior development in the face of growing unrest from their supporters. It has paid dividends.

Of course, its' very easy for clubs who have paid scant regard to their junior development to whine about how easy it is for the big rich clubs to do it in an effort to excuse themselves.

The fact is Leeds did it when they were not successful, Leeds did it when they were very broke and the argument about service areas aside there is no excuse for any club failing to invest in a decent youth policy because whilst it doesn't reap the same short term dividends it's far cheaper than investing in overseas players.

Hang on... IIRC Leeds still invested in overseas players - Mullins, Clyde, Ben Walker, Gary Mercer (!) - they just weren't that good. I don't recall this purgatory Leeds fans sat through where callow youths got their asses handed to them. Leeds were in a position to compete in the here and now while keeping the youth side plate spinning at the same time. That they didn't win consistently until relatively recently was more due to crap recruitment (and Bradford not committing hari-kari... yet) than enlightened nurturing.

I think you've picked up Smokey TA's argument which is flawed - it fails to recognise that not every side is as favourably placed Leeds are in and so it will take a greater effort to reap similar results.

You say Gary H and Caddick must take all credit for the youth policy but look at the Leeds 1998 GF side - Morley, Rivett, Newton, St Hilaire, Holroyd, Cummins - six of the side were Leeds products from the previous regime. If the derided Alf Davies era can contribute over a third of a side that walks out at Old Trafford, doesn't that suggest that Leeds might be particularly well-positioned to develop their own players?

GH and PC do deserve praise for what they have achieved but it does not necessarily follow that any club that has not replicated that success has only itself to blame. Circumstances matter.

: Thu Feb 12, 2009 12:21 pm  

af wrote:

Would that business model have been viable anywhere else other than a booming financial centre with no other Super League club and only one soccer club, in turmoil?

the business model consists of a lot more than the youthe development model

Hang on... IIRC Leeds still invested in overseas players - Mullins, Clyde, Ben Walker, Gary Mercer (!) - they just weren't that good. I don't recall this purgatory Leeds fans sat through where callow youths got their asses handed to them. Leeds were in a position to compete in the here and now while keeping the youth side plate spinning at the same time. That they didn't win consistently until relatively recently was more due to crap recruitment (and Bradford not committing hari-kari... yet) than enlightened nurturing.

or those players not being good enough yet... but are now better than they would have been had

players like JJB, Burrow etc all took a lot of criticism in 2002 and 2003, as did the coaches and hetherington, hence Powell moving upstairs

I think you've picked up Smokey TA's argument which is flawed - it fails to recognise that not every side is as favourably placed Leeds are in and so it will take a greater effort to reap similar results.

so how come a small town like St Helens has also managed to do it? Hull were bust ten years ago, look at what they have acheived in youth development and giving an opportunity to british players, look at what Bradford have acheived with regards to peacock, fielden, pryce etc in a dying city

You say Gary H and Caddick must take all credit for the youth policy but look at the Leeds 1998 GF side - Morley, Rivett, Newton, St Hilaire, Holroyd, Cummins - six of the side were Leeds products from the previous regime. If the derided Alf Davies era can contribute over a third of a side that walks out at Old Trafford, doesn't that suggest that Leeds might be particularly well-positioned to develop their own players?

Morely was from Salford, why were leeds in any better position to pick him up than other clubs? St Hilaire was from Hudds, holroyd from fax, newton wigan, and cummins dewsbury, why were leeds uniquely positioned to pick these guys up?

GH and PC do deserve praise for what they have achieved but it does not necessarily follow that any club that has not replicated that success has only itself to blame. Circumstances matter.

if there is something intrinsic in a clubs make up that means it cannot be a well run business, with a large audience, sustainable, and cannot bring through young british players, cannot invest in youth development and cannot build a squad of homegrown players then maybe SL isnt the right place for them to be

: Thu Feb 12, 2009 12:25 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

if there is something intrinsic in a clubs make up that means it cannot be a well run business, with a large audience, sustainable, and cannot bring through young british players, cannot invest in youth development and cannot build a squad of homegrown players then maybe SL isnt the right place for them to be

We're not talking 'cannot'. We're talking 'has not'. Will get back to you on the rest of it.