Re: Youth Development : Fri Nov 02, 2012 5:09 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

But in that article it didn't say that Leeds and Wigan had voted for the proposals, which is what OP stated.
I'm still waiting for PY's reply as the whether there were any other proposals put forward.

Waiting for my reply!!!!!!!!!! - Chris Bridge; Huddersfield; sending-off mean anything to you?

Anyway I believe that Saints and Warrington would have obviously offered other proposals. I'd imagine from conversations I have had that Warrington's would have been to retain the u18s and u20s but returning to 3 over-age players at u20 level (it was increased to 5 last year but Warrington in winning the u20 competition kept to the original level of 3 over age platers anyway). Also retaining service areas as was. I wouldn't be suprised if Warrington had proposed all Super League clubs being required to expend a "minimum" amount of money to ita academy.

I'm guessing you are going to start going on about Wigan proposing an u23s competition. This was done after the decision to replace the u18s and u20s was passed and lets be honest a four team competition would have been a farce. There is no doubt that those in charge of the Academy and youth rugby at Wigan are against the changes however those in charge of the club supported and voted for the changes. Amazingly Wigan lobbied and voted this way without even considering how many over the u19s cut-off they had signed-up for next season that were unlikely to be involved regularly at first team level.

Re: Youth Development : Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:58 pm  

Paul Youane wrote:

Waiting for my reply!!!!!!!!!! - Chris Bridge; Huddersfield; sending-off mean anything to you?

Anyway I believe that Saints and Warrington would have obviously offered other proposals. I'd imagine from conversations I have had that Warrington's would have been to retain the u18s and u20s but returning to 3 over-age players at u20 level (it was increased to 5 last year but Warrington in winning the u20 competition kept to the original level of 3 over age platers anyway). Also retaining service areas as was. I wouldn't be suprised if Warrington had proposed all Super League clubs being required to expend a "minimum" amount of money to ita academy.

I'm guessing you are going to start going on about Wigan proposing an u23s competition. This was done after the decision to replace the u18s and u20s was passed and lets be honest a four team competition would have been a farce. There is no doubt that those in charge of the Academy and youth rugby at Wigan are against the changes however those in charge of the club supported and voted for the changes. Amazingly Wigan lobbied and voted this way without even considering how many over the u19s cut-off they had signed-up for next season that were unlikely to be involved regularly at first team level.

So you ASSUME Saints and Warrington put forward other proposals, but KNOW Wigan lobbied and voted for the new proposals?

As you know I am totally against the changes, but know nothing about the U23 proposal, hence why I asked the question regarding other proposals put forward.

What I find completely baffling is that Wakefield proposed the increase to 5 overage players last season (I could see their reasoning) then we go from that to no overage players and a reduction in the age group to U19's.

I am led to believe that five Wigan players are going to Leigh, some to South Wales and some to London, then there is the rumour of two going to Salford.

Anyway lets see how it goes, but if I were a betting man I would have a wager on another change in a year or two.

Re: Youth Development : Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:32 pm  

Featherstone voice their concerns, which I share: http://www.pontefractandcastlefordexpre ... -1-5082032

Featherstone voice their concerns, which I share: http://www.pontefractandcastlefordexpre ... -1-5082032

Re: Youth Development : Mon Nov 05, 2012 1:48 pm  

SEB wrote: Featherstone voice their concerns, which I share: http://www.pontefractandcastlefordexpre ... -1-5082032 Good article, I did have a copy of Mark Aston and Daryl Powell's criticisms in League Express somewhere, if I can find it I will put it on here.

SEB wrote: Featherstone voice their concerns, which I share: http://www.pontefractandcastlefordexpre ... -1-5082032 Good article, I did have a copy of Mark Aston and Daryl Powell's criticisms in League Express somewhere, if I can find it I will put it on here.

Re: Youth Development : Mon Nov 05, 2012 8:57 pm  

If Leeds and Wigan voted for the new proposals then maybe there is something in them?

After all those two clubs have been producing great young players for generations.

Re: Youth Development : Tue Nov 06, 2012 1:23 pm  

sally cinnamon wrote:

If Leeds and Wigan voted for the new proposals then maybe there is something in them?

After all those two clubs have been producing great young players for generations.

My guess on that is that both clubs have such strong local amateur RL pools to draw from they will be guaranteed a player supply whatever they do. Most clubs, including ourselves, are much more limited in local supply.

Re: Youth Development : Fri Nov 09, 2012 11:43 am  

Interesting point from Paul Rowley at the Leigh fans forum- the club tried to get James Laithwate on a year long loan, and if Tony Smith is true to his word he won't be playing in the Championship this year. I wonder if this will mean first team appearances for us or another spell on loan at Rovers?

He also said that Tony Smith had told him he would not be interested in linking up with Leigh because as a club they are ambitious.

[Uncle Rico]

Re: Youth Development : Fri Nov 09, 2012 1:11 pm  

He also said that Tony Smith had told him he would not be interested in linking up with Leigh because as a club they are ambitious.[/quote]

Is that such a bad thing? Surely you'd want your players to be linking up with an ambitious, progressive club, rather than fighting 'lost causes' in a struggling team stuck in the 'doldrums' and that's no slight on Swinton BTW.

It just seemed that our relationship with Leigh seemed to work well, unless ambitious was a coded way of saying avaricious?

Re: Youth Development : Fri Nov 09, 2012 1:44 pm  

Uncle Rico wrote:

He also said that Tony Smith had told him he would not be interested in linking up with Leigh because as a club they are ambitious.

Is that such a bad thing? Surely you'd want your players to be linking up with an ambitious, progressive club, rather than fighting 'lost causes' in a struggling team stuck in the 'doldrums' and that's no slight on Swinton BTW.

It just seemed that our relationship with Leigh seemed to work well, unless ambitious was a coded way of saying avaricious?[/quote]
I think he knew that a partnership deal like we have with Swinton would not be wanted by fans or the club, where as it is easy to effectively use Swinton, who have no real ambitions other than their own ground as a feeder club kind of thing. Leigh is only interested in keeping the kind of relationship we have had over the past few years, where as to make the most of this new fangled partnership thing it needs to be more than that.

[Uncle Rico]

Re: Youth Development : Fri Nov 09, 2012 1:55 pm  

Leigh is only interested in keeping the kind of relationship we have had over the past few years, where as to make the most of this new fangled partnership thing it needs to be more than that.[/quote]

Fair enough, perhaps I was reading a bit more into it than necessary and must admit i havent quite gotten my head around any 'formality' involved in the new arrangements over and above last years' effort and the previous one involving the Chris Hill signing