Re: Homegrown numbers : Mon Oct 26, 2015 3:57 pm  

ccs wrote:

The salary cap year started on the 1st December last year, and I can't imagine that changing.
Clubs will surely have already been told what other changes have been made which directly affect who can play?

You would expect so. As RBA points out Rovers have recently jettisoned most of their homegrown players so maybe that's in part a consequence of not being required to have any/as many as previously needed?

Re: Homegrown numbers : Mon Oct 26, 2015 5:05 pm  

Mrs Barista wrote:

What difference will that make though, other than giving a salary cap dispensation for one squad member?

Over the last few years the rfl have been working to irradicate some inconsistencies in the published rules. For example:

...for British based clubs, £1,825,000 (One Million Nine Hundred and Twenty Five Thousand Pounds)

There would be no point publishing a definition of homegrown for squad make up rules and a different definition for the marquee rule. I expect the home grown element of the above posted rule to be reintroduced after the figure out "what is a homegrown player" for the marquee rule, with the same definition for both rules.

[Mild Rover]

Re: Homegrown numbers : Mon Oct 26, 2015 7:48 pm  

As with the salary cap, I think carouselling fed-train players makes the headline figures misleading on the club-trained quota.

Re: Homegrown numbers : Mon Oct 26, 2015 8:53 pm  

Mild Rover wrote:

As with the salary cap, I think carouselling fed-train players makes the headline figures misleading on the club-trained quota.

Eh?

Re: Homegrown numbers : Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:39 am  

Mrs Barista wrote:

You would expect so. As RBA points out Rovers have recently jettisoned most of their homegrown players so maybe that's in part a consequence of not being required to have any/as many as previously needed?

Looking at some of the signings we've made it does make me think that 'club trained' may be replaced by 'fed trained below a certain age,' which would make some sense but the underlying problems of not developing 'our own' is still disappointing. As with all these rules they are all bent into suiting the individual clubs. Will be interesting to see how the RFL deal with Leigh and there outright ignoring of the salary cap next year.

Re: Homegrown numbers : Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:59 am  

barham red wrote:

Looking at some of the signings we've made it does make me think that 'club trained' may be replaced by 'fed trained below a certain age,' which would make some sense but the underlying problems of not developing 'our own' is still disappointing. As with all these rules they are all bent into suiting the individual clubs. Will be interesting to see how the RFL deal with Leigh and there outright ignoring of the salary cap next year.

Rumour seems to suggest they already have - Chase was (supposedly) signed 8 weeks ago - yet still no announcement because the rfl won't register him.

[Mild Rover]

Re: Homegrown numbers : Tue Oct 27, 2015 1:28 pm  

Mrs Barista wrote:

Eh?

We know from the Willie Mason-Michael Dobson affair that there is a rule that means that under normal circumstances a non-fed player cannot be de- and re-registered by a club during the same season.

I never found an equivalent rule for fed-trained players, so i assume they can be de- and re-registered repeatedly throughout the season.

We know also that the cap is 'live', and the main part only applies to the top 25 registered earners. We also know that clubs 'play' the rules to gain advantage.

At any one time during the season, it is likely that some fed-trained players in the 'real' top 25 will be suspended/injured/out of favour. Clubs who want to stretch their cap can routinely de-register them until they are needed, promoting lower-paid youngsters from the fringes of the squad to the top 25 registered group. This will require careful management, but will make more cap space available to teams that can afford to take advantage. As much as 15%, I reckon. This is part of the reason that two clubs, both notionally spending the cap, can have squads of clearly differing quality. That is my theory, anyway.

Same principles apply to the club-trained rule. De-register non-club-trained, fed-trained players who are not in your matchday 17, and make up the registered 25-man squad with fringe club-trained players. For example, at Rovers let's say Salter, Green and Cox are really in the top 25. We could then make up the numbers by rolling de-registration of a handful of fed-trained players so Holker, Marsh and 3 kids promoted from the academy are always in the top 25 - without impacting much on the matchday 17.

Or maybe they've just binned the rule. We'd now be pushing it to it's limit, it has to be said.

Re: Homegrown numbers : Tue Oct 27, 2015 1:46 pm  

Mild Rover wrote:

We know from the Willie Mason-Michael Dobson affair that there is a rule that means that under normal circumstances a non-fed player cannot be de- and re-registered by a club during the same season.

I never found an equivalent rule for fed-trained players, so i assume they can be de- and re-registered repeatedly throughout the season.

We know also that the cap is 'live', and the main part only applies to the top 25 registered earners. We also know that clubs 'play' the rules to gain advantage.

At any one time during the season, it is likely that some fed-trained players in the 'real' top 25 will be suspended/injured/out of favour. Clubs who want to stretch their cap can routinely de-register them until they are needed, promoting lower-paid youngsters from the fringes of the squad to the top 25 registered group. This will require careful management, but will make more cap space available to teams that can afford to take advantage. As much as 15%, I reckon. This is part of the reason that two clubs, both notionally spending the cap, can have squads of clearly differing quality. That is my theory, anyway.

Same principles apply to the club-trained rule. De-register non-club-trained, fed-trained players who are not in your matchday 17, and make up the registered 25-man squad with fringe club-trained players. For example, at Rovers let's say Salter, Green and Cox are really in the top 25. We could then make up the numbers by rolling de-registration of a handful of fed-trained players so Holker, Marsh and 3 kids promoted from the academy are always in the top 25 - without impacting much on the matchday 17.

Or maybe they've just binned the rule. We'd now be pushing it to it's limit, it has to be said.

Sigh.

Any player who is deregistered can be registered by another club. There is no need to have a contract of employment for a club to register the player (as is the case for first refusals) - so if any club chooses to deregister a player, they risk owing a transfer fee to another club for their own player.

Further to this, due to insurance, a deregistered player is not allowed to train or be associated with any club training sessions, and is a common break clause in a standard SL contract.

Simply put, you can't do this.

Re: Homegrown numbers : Tue Oct 27, 2015 1:59 pm  

Mild Rover wrote:

We know from the Willie Mason-Michael Dobson affair that there is a rule that means that under normal circumstances a non-fed player cannot be de- and re-registered by a club during the same season.

I never found an equivalent rule for fed-trained players, so i assume they can be de- and re-registered repeatedly throughout the season.

We know also that the cap is 'live', and the main part only applies to the top 25 registered earners. We also know that clubs 'play' the rules to gain advantage.

At any one time during the season, it is likely that some fed-trained players in the 'real' top 25 will be suspended/injured/out of favour. Clubs who want to stretch their cap can routinely de-register them until they are needed, promoting lower-paid youngsters from the fringes of the squad to the top 25 registered group. This will require careful management, but will make more cap space available to teams that can afford to take advantage. As much as 15%, I reckon. This is part of the reason that two clubs, both notionally spending the cap, can have squads of clearly differing quality. That is my theory, anyway.

Same principles apply to the club-trained rule. De-register non-club-trained, fed-trained players who are not in your matchday 17, and make up the registered 25-man squad with fringe club-trained players. For example, at Rovers let's say Salter, Green and Cox are really in the top 25. We could then make up the numbers by rolling de-registration of a handful of fed-trained players so Holker, Marsh and 3 kids promoted from the academy are always in the top 25 - without impacting much on the matchday 17.

Or maybe they've just binned the rule. We'd now be pushing it to it's limit, it has to be said.

No offence but the administration of the Machiavellian system and audit thereof seems way too complicated and time-consuming to realistically be going on extensively. More likely scenario is that some clubs have been paying lip service to providing a genuine pathway to first team rugby for years and are heaving a big sigh of relief at being off the hook now and can give up the pretence.

Re: Homegrown numbers : Tue Oct 27, 2015 2:04 pm  

Magic Superbeetle wrote:

Sigh.

Any player who is deregistered can be registered by another club. There is no need to have a contract of employment for a club to register the player (as is the case for first refusals) - so if any club chooses to deregister a player, they risk owing a transfer fee to another club for their own player.

Further to this, due to insurance, a deregistered player is not allowed to train or be associated with any club training sessions, and is a common break clause in a standard SL contract.

Simply put, you can't do this.

It does sound too complicated to be administered and checked effectively. I'm probably being thick (no change there) but simply put do you expect there to be any formal requirements for clubs to have homegrown (club) players in their squad in future once all rule changes are enacted?