Coach Stuart you are a ********** Disgrace

[Catatonic_Omnivore]

South are a club that has always invested in junior talent.They have allway been a club,who would try and devolpe from inside their own backyard.Before taking the easy route,like the rorters and than eagles

You have got be kidding!!!

Souths couldn't even afford to invest on a $2 Lottery ticket. Souths juniors are the ones who provide funding to the junior comp. Souths juniors even fund the senior club. You do know that Souths Juniors are a separate entity from Souths?

 

[Catatonic_Omnivore]

A club with a large junior infrastructure will spend upwards of $10M every year. As an example,

Primary cap $3.36M
Allowances $400K
Secondary cap $300K
Non NRL squad JF etc $1M
Junior Infrustructure $2M
Club administration and facilities $3M

Clubs don't simply operate on the NRL grant today.

Yes, of course I know they don't simply operate on the grant.

Let me explain it again. Based on your proposal, part of the condition of receiving an NRL grant is that the club must invest in their juniors. What if in a case like Souths where they receive a grant but they can't afford to invest in the Junior club. In fact, they rely on funding from Souths juniors. Does this mean they cant receive a grant which they then rely on for survival? See what I'm getting at?

Not at all. Feeder clubs are a good example where a club is partially funded and acquires certain players on scholarships etc. The entire club benefits as well. All those kids who never go on with the sport but develop a lifelong love for the sport of rugby league.

I really don't get your arguement here. As far as I know all clubs apart from Souths invest in their juniors or feeder clubs. The degree to how much they invest varies. If your trying to acheive parity across the board then it will never happen unless borders are drawn up and agreed to or grants are reduced and a portion is handed over to a central body that governs Junior Rugby League.

 

[DJ1]

A club with a large junior infrastructure will spend upwards of $10M every year. As an example,

Primary cap $3.36M
Allowances $400K
Secondary cap $300K
Non NRL squad JF etc $1M
Junior Infrustructure $2M
Club administration and facilities $3M

Clubs don't simply operate on the NRL grant today.

Yes, of course I know they don't simply operate on the grant.

Let me explain it again. Based on your proposal, part of the condition of receiving an NRL grant is that the club must invest in their juniors. What if in a case like Souths where they receive a grant but they can't afford to invest in the Junior club. In fact, they rely on funding from Souths juniors. Does this mean they cant receive a grant which they then rely on for survival? See what I'm getting at?

Clubs have to be financially successful to survive in the future. The NSWRL and ARL knew that having 11 Sydney teams in Sydney would not work in the long term and had begun implementing the Bradley report in 1992 which planned to have only 5 Sydney teams.

It is clear that at some point in the future the NRL grant will cover the entire salary cap. Clubs have a responsibility to invest into the grass roots of the game not simply purchase the elite juniors which someone else has developed.

Not at all. Feeder clubs are a good example where a club is partially funded and acquires certain players on scholarships etc. The entire club benefits as well. All those kids who never go on with the sport but develop a lifelong love for the sport of rugby league.

I really don't get your arguement here. As far as I know all clubs apart from Souths invest in their juniors or feeder clubs. The degree to how much they invest varies. If your trying to acheive parity across the board then it will never happen unless borders are drawn up and agreed to or grants are reduced and a portion is handed over to a central body that governs Junior Rugby League.

The entirety of Australia and NZ needs to be divided up into 16 or 18 franchise development areas. Boundary distribution will always be an issue in Sydney due to history. If for example due to the NRL reinstituting the implementation of the ARL Bradley report and embarked on a 10 year plan of Nationalisation of the competition and rationalisation of Sydney franchises a team chose to relocate to Perth due to a massive NRL cash incentive, they would still retain their current Junior district plus take on the region of Western Australia plus receive a NSW country group, a QLD regional comp plus a NZ feeder.

You could always go down the track of the NRL taking over all junior costs and even NRL playing costs and reducing the grant to $1M per year per club.

There are many scenarios which have potential but one thing that is clear is that certain clubs invest in entire junior infrastructures whilst others focus simply on purchasing the best juniors developed by others.

 

[Catatonic_Omnivore]

Clubs have to be financially successful to survive in the future. The NSWRL and ARL knew that having 11 Sydney teams in Sydney would not work in the long term and had begun implementing the Bradley report in 1992 which planned to have only 5 Sydney teams.

So you do agree that under your plan, Souths will have to go.

It is clear that at some point in the future the NRL grant will cover the entire salary cap. Clubs have a responsibility to invest into the grass roots of the game not simply purchase the elite juniors which someone else has developed.

So juniors should be tagged as either elite and non-elite. Only non-elite juniors are allowed to be recuirted by other clubs. Going by this arguement if a club has a wealth of 1st grade half-backs there is every chance that thier "elite junior" halfbacks will have to be shelved.

I don't think its fair to the "elite junior" dont you?

Take for example, Billy Slater or Greg Inglis. Do you think they would have enjoyed the success they have if they were not allowed to join the Storm?

It is up to each club to ensure that their recruitment and retention program is on order.

The entirety of Australia and NZ needs to be divided up into 16 or 18 franchise development areas. Boundary distribution will always be an issue in Sydney due to history. If for example due to the NRL reinstituting the implementation of the ARL Bradley report and embarked on a 10 year plan of Nationalisation of the competition and rationalisation of Sydney franchises a team chose to relocate to Perth due to a massive NRL cash incentive, they would still retain their current Junior district plus take on the region of Western Australia plus receive a NSW country group, a QLD regional comp plus a NZ feeder.

So you do agree that its through no fault of the club that they have to seek "elite juniors" elsewhere due to the disparity of the boundaries. Again supply & demand.

You could always go down the track of the NRL taking over all junior costs and even NRL playing costs and reducing the grant to $1M per year per club.

There are many scenarios which have potential but one thing that is clear is that certain clubs invest in entire junior infrastructures whilst others focus simply on purchasing the best juniors developed by others.

Bottom line, Cost vs Benefit is what drives this. Not all clubs have the same post analysis result. Hence, my suggestion and my opinion that it should not be upto individual clubs to do so but a central body which ensures that funds are distributed eaqually and develop other regions.

 

[DJ1]

Clubs have to be financially successful to survive in the future. The NSWRL and ARL knew that having 11 Sydney teams in Sydney would not work in the long term and had begun implementing the Bradley report in 1992 which planned to have only 5 Sydney teams.

So you do agree that under your plan, Souths will have to go.

Not at all. I'm not saying who has to go and who has to stay.

It is clear that at some point in the future the NRL grant will cover the entire salary cap. Clubs have a responsibility to invest into the grass roots of the game not simply purchase the elite juniors which someone else has developed.

So juniors should be tagged as either elite and non-elite. Only non-elite juniors are allowed to be recuirted by other clubs. Going by this arguement if a club has a wealth of 1st grade half-backs there is every chance that thier "elite junior" halfbacks will have to be shelved.

I don't think its fair to the "elite junior" dont you?

Take for example, Billy Slater or Greg Inglis. Do you think they would have enjoyed the success they have if they were not allowed to join the Storm?

It is up to each club to ensure that their recruitment and retention program is on order.

No again. This is not about which juniors should be allowed to be recruited. This is about putting in place measures to ensure that every club has to invest in grass roots infrastructure to be eligible to receive the NRL grant.

The entirety of Australia and NZ needs to be divided up into 16 or 18 franchise development areas. Boundary distribution will always be an issue in Sydney due to history. If for example due to the NRL reinstituting the implementation of the ARL Bradley report and embarked on a 10 year plan of Nationalisation of the competition and rationalisation of Sydney franchises a team chose to relocate to Perth due to a massive NRL cash incentive, they would still retain their current Junior district plus take on the region of Western Australia plus receive a NSW country group, a QLD regional comp plus a NZ feeder.

So you do agree that its through no fault of the club that they have to seek "elite juniors" elsewhere due to the disparity of the boundaries. Again supply & demand.

No!

The Roosters are in their situation due to the Ron Jones era of the transit lounge. There is nothing stopping the Roosters from investing in junior infrastructure elsewhere. The Roosters had 100 odd junior teams in the early 1980’s. They did not assist them and they subsequently moved to a competition where they would be supported with a solid junior infrastructure. The constant bleating about an Anzac Pde boundary change in the 1950s is irrelevent to the lack of support and the decisions these clubs made to move for their own survival.

You could always go down the track of the NRL taking over all junior costs and even NRL playing costs and reducing the grant to $1M per year per club.

There are many scenarios which have potential but one thing that is clear is that certain clubs invest in entire junior infrastructures whilst others focus simply on purchasing the best juniors developed by others.

Bottom line, Cost vs Benefit is what drives this. Not all clubs have the same post analysis result. Hence, my suggestion and my opinion that it should not be upto individual clubs to do so but a central body which ensures that funds are distributed eaqually and develop other regions.

Some clubs actually care about the game at a grassroots level as well.
Some clubs are only interested in their own bottom line and not the game.

 

[Catatonic_Omnivore]

Not at all. I'm not saying who has to go and who has to stay.

Yes you do. You stated before that as part of receiveng a grant from the NRL, every club must invest in their juniors. Well, like i said, Souths do not invest on their juniors. Souths Juniors fund the juniors. Going by that, Souths are then not eligible to receive a grant. Without a grant, there is no Souths.

No again. This is not about which juniors should be allowed to be recruited. This is about putting in place measures to ensure that every club has to invest in grass roots infrastructure to be eligible to receive the NRL grant.

But wasn't it your gripe that other clubs are skimming "elite juniors" instead of developing their own?

Like I said every club does invest on their juniors, apart from Souths. You will never achieve parity if left to individual clubs.

No!

The Roosters are in their situation due to the Ron Jones era of the transit lounge. There is nothing stopping the Roosters from investing in junior infrastructure elsewhere. The Roosters had 100 odd junior teams in the early 1980’s. They did not assist them and they subsequently moved to a competition where they would be supported with a solid junior infrastructure.

So you don't think the Roosters currently invest on their feeder clubs up north or their juniors?

Some clubs actually care about the game at a grassroots level as well.
Some clubs are only interested in their own bottom line and not the game.

Some clubs like the Bulldogs I guess and the Roosters don't. I suppose you can qualify that claim.

Convince me by showing me how much each team spends, per junior, in their area.

 

[Newcastlerabbit]

Will Stuart have a "spit about something" this weekend?

 

[Catatonic_Omnivore]

Will Stuart have a "spit about something" this weekend?

Will the Bunnies be packing for Gosford after this weekend?

 

[UndertakerMike]

Will Stuart have a "spit about something" this weekend?

Of course he will.

But it'll be as a losing coach :badgrin:

 

[Danish]

blah di McBlah blah blah

I'll ask again...... Who are the juniors the great juniors that you have brought through your club- playing for you or otherwise- that are going around in the NRL today??

All that money counts for sh*t if it isnt developing into talent.

As to your comment that 90% of a players development comes from 16 and up I would disagree.

90% of the development of that player has occurred by the time they are 14. The key components being the desire to play and the instilling of a training regime.

There would not be more than a handful of players in the NRL who had not played the game prior to turning 16.

Yup. Because thats really all that is needed to be a good/great player. Desire and training. All those things like skill and footy knowledge are just a myth.

I'd also bet that there are 100s of 16 y.o's who ruled their respective comps that crumble when playing with the big boys due to poor coaching/developent once joining an NRL club's junior ranks

 

[DJ1]

Not at all. I'm not saying who has to go and who has to stay.

Yes you do. You stated before that as part of receiveng a grant from the NRL, every club must invest in their juniors. Well, like i said, Souths do not invest on their juniors. Souths Juniors fund the juniors. Going by that, Souths are then not eligible to receive a grant. Without a grant, there is no Souths.

The rule is not in place. If it was, all teams would have to abide by it. No club in their right mind would not invest in juniors and no club would be kicked out as a result. In Souths case, they would simply merge with Souths Juniors. Do Wests-Tigers Football club invest in juniors or is it Balmain and Western Suburbs who do? Is the Parramatta Football Club or Parramatta Leagues club that provides the junior funding? Is it the St George-Illawarra Football club that invests in junior or is it the component parts? Does the Bulldogs Football Club invest in juniors or is it the Canterbury Bankstown Leagues club? Sydney Roosters Football club?

This is the current problematic structure.

By linking the NRL grant to development or having a grant reduced due to a lack of it will ensure not only the future survival of the grass roots but effectively compete with the grass roots of other codes.

No again. This is not about which juniors should be allowed to be recruited. This is about putting in place measures to ensure that every club has to invest in grass roots infrastructure to be eligible to receive the NRL grant.

But wasn't it your gripe that other clubs are skimming "elite juniors" instead of developing their own?
Like I said every club does invest on their juniors, apart from Souths. You will never achieve parity if left to individual clubs.

I have no issue with any clubs skimming elite juniors if their club or it's associated leagues / juniors club is putting a significant investment into ongoing junior infrastructure. If they aren't, they have not earned the right to skim.

No!

The Roosters are in their situation due to the Ron Jones era of the transit lounge. There is nothing stopping the Roosters from investing in junior infrastructure elsewhere. The Roosters had 100 odd junior teams in the early 1980’s. They did not assist them and they subsequently moved to a competition where they would be supported with a solid junior infrastructure.

So you don't think the Roosters currently invest on their feeder clubs up north or their juniors?

I believe that the Roosters have pulled out of their feeder club arrangement with Redcliffe so that would be a "No" for the Northern part of the question. The Roosters are now down to only 4 junior teams in their own district but I believe that they now support them. I am not aware of the financial details of the Newtown deal to comment on that.

Some clubs actually care about the game at a grassroots level as well.
Some clubs are only interested in their own bottom line and not the game.

Some clubs like the Bulldogs I guess and the Roosters don't. I suppose you can qualify that claim.

It simply varies from club to club. There is no set in stone requirement. It can also change on a year to year basis due to various budgets. The NRL needs to implement a solid and auditable junior infrastructure investment threshold or else take the whole thing over.

Convince me by showing me how much each team spends, per junior, in their area.

LOL. OK I'll just check my filing cabinet. On second thoughts, some of the information you are requesting is confidential so how about we do a trade.

I'll give you all of that information when you let me audit all of the Roosters players taxations records for salary cap auditing puposes.

 

[Catatonic_Omnivore]

In Souths case, they would simply merge with Souths Juniors.

This just shows how far off from reality you are.

As for the rest of your reply...

You have no idea how much other clubs spend on their juniors or how they are structured, as I suspected, so how you can make those claims is beyond me.

 

[Newcastlerabbit]

Will the Bunnies be packing for Gosford after this weekend?

Not in your lifetime.

 

[Choppies]

Central Coast Rabbitohs. It will happen within 10 years or they will fold. I cannot see them surviving in Sydney.

 

[DJ1]

The rule is not in place. If it was, all teams would have to abide by it. No club in their right mind would not invest in juniors and no club would be kicked out as a result. In Souths case, they would simply merge with Souths Juniors. Do Wests-Tigers Football club invest in juniors or is it Balmain and Western Suburbs who do? Is the Parramatta Football Club or Parramatta Leagues club that provides the junior funding? Is it the St George-Illawarra Football club that invests in junior or is it the component parts? Does the Bulldogs Football Club invest in juniors or is it the Canterbury Bankstown Leagues club? Sydney Roosters Football club?

This is the current problematic structure.

By linking the NRL grant to development or having a grant reduced due to a lack of it will ensure not only the future survival of the grass roots but effectively compete with the grass roots of other codes.

This just shows how far off from reality you are.

This is not reality at all it is a proposal to ensure that every club is forced to invest in junior infrastructure and if they don't there would be NRL grant penalties. A club can still choose not to invest, they would simply receive a lower grant from the governing body (NRL) than a club who invests $2M per year.

As for the rest of your reply...

You have no idea how much other clubs spend on their juniors or how they are structured, as I suspected, so how you can make those claims is beyond me.

It is quite simple to deduce that some clubs spend more than others on junior infrastructure than others when,

Some clubs have no juniors at all
Some have only one or two feeder clubs
Some have a very low number of junior clubs
Some have a large number of juniors
Some have a large number of junior and also invest in feeder clubs

Don't you agree that some clubs invest more than others into junior infrastructure?

 

[Catatonic_Omnivore]

This is not reality at all it is a proposal to ensure that every club is forced to invest in junior infrastructure and if they don't there would be NRL grant penalties. A club can still choose not to invest, they would simply receive a lower grant from the governing body (NRL) than a club who invests $2M per year.

I'm glad that you agree that you lost all sense of reality. If you are going to propose something at least ensure that there is a chance of it ever happening.

It is quite simple to deduce that some clubs spend more than others on junior infrastructure than others when,

Some clubs have no juniors at all
Some have only one or two feeder clubs
Some have a very low number of junior clubs
Some have a large number of juniors
Some have a large number of junior and also invest in feeder clubs

Don't you agree that some clubs invest more than others into junior infrastructure?

Sure but there is no way of knowing whether the disparity is unjust is there?

 

[Catatonic_Omnivore]

Not in your lifetime.

I'm not as old as some of the Bunnies supporters trying to vote on Sunday. I'ld like to think I have a few decades in me yet.

But it will happen either way the votes goes on Sunday. The sooner the club realises that it is the only viable option the better it is for them.

If PHAC & Crowe win, I can see Blackcourt being sold to Singo in a couple of years.

 

[DJ1]

The rule is not in place. If it was, all teams would have to abide by it. No club in their right mind would not invest in juniors and no club would be kicked out as a result. In Souths case, they would simply merge with Souths Juniors. Do Wests-Tigers Football club invest in juniors or is it Balmain and Western Suburbs who do? Is the Parramatta Football Club or Parramatta Leagues club that provides the junior funding? Is it the St George-Illawarra Football club that invests in junior or is it the component parts? Does the Bulldogs Football Club invest in juniors or is it the Canterbury Bankstown Leagues club? Sydney Roosters Football club?

This is the current problematic structure.

By linking the NRL grant to development or having a grant reduced due to a lack of it will ensure not only the future survival of the grass roots but effectively compete with the grass roots of other codes.

This just shows how far off from reality you are.

This is not reality at all it is a proposal to ensure that every club is forced to invest in junior infrastructure and if they don't there would be NRL grant penalties. A club can still choose not to invest, they would simply receive a lower grant from the governing body (NRL) than a club who invests $2M per year.

I'm glad that you agree that you lost all sense of reality. If you are going to propose something at least ensure that there is a chance of it ever happening.

I guess you're right. The Roosters will never invest in junior infrastructure to the same level as other clubs.

It is quite simple to deduce that some clubs spend more than others on junior infrastructure than others when,

Some clubs have no juniors at all
Some have only one or two feeder clubs
Some have a very low number of junior clubs
Some have a large number of juniors
Some have a large number of juniors and also invest in feeder clubs

Don't you agree that some clubs invest more than others into junior infrastructure?

Sure but there is no way of knowing whether the disparity is unjust is there?

Yes. With no minimum investment threshhold it will be unjust if every club receives an identical NRL grant but spend vastly different amounts on nurturing the grass roots of the game. In nature it is called a "parasite".

 

[Catatonic_Omnivore]

I guess you're right. The Roosters will never invest in junior infrastructure to the same level as other clubs.


Yes. With no minimum investment threshhold it will be unjust if every club receives an identical NRL grant but spend vastly different amounts on nurturing the grass roots of the game. In nature it is called a "parasite".

I've tried maintaning an objective discussion but you obviously hold your beloved Bulldogs with such high esteem they are the absolute role models of the Rugby League world.

I believe your argurements may have been posted incorrectly and belong in "NRL Fantasy League" which is the next forum up.

 

[Catatonic_Omnivore]

Yes. With no minimum investment threshhold it will be unjust if every club receives an identical NRL grant but spend vastly different amounts on nurturing the grass roots of the game. In nature it is called a "parasite".

I forgot to mention...

Do you know what they call a person who can't back up thier arguments with facts. I'm pretty sure they are called "Bull$hit Artists".