I agree to some extent but I think the problem is certain clubs buying sub standard overseas players. However we'll always be reliant on foreign players because participation levels and quality of players produced here just aren't high enough. If we lowered the overseas quota we'd also have to reduce the number of super league teams to ensure better quality and standards.
Also there's 80 odd pages of transfer gossip here, what would we have to talk and get excited about if we significantly capped the overseas spots?
Very fair point.
Reducing the quota is only useful if you have a significant number of good young players coming through the systems, which we dont really have. Clubs bring in overseas players to improve their squad, otherwise they'd just go with younger players. Unfortunately Australia produces more and better talent than we do and they always have unfortunately.
Originally Posted by Despondent Dave
But is it chicken and egg? Would we have more good youngsters coming through if teams who over rely on imports ran strong academies and if we, as a sport, ran a properly organised A team system? Would we better placed to keep our own players if the cap were raised?
I admit I don’t know much about the strengths of the community game but there is a team down here and our local secondary school had both League and Union teams.
Possibly, but I think there's more to it than just reducing the quota. Reducing the quota sounds great in theory but ultimately the really good talent rises to the top anyway and if there isn't a huge amount of good young talent the competition becomes weaker. You still have to have a really strong competition and Overseas players do offer value to the competition (albeit not all of them).
The game needs to be producing more talent, which means more investment in grass roots. To get more investment the game at the top needs to be really strong and investable to sponsors and TV companies. The game needs role models and it needs to be attractive so kids watching the sport want to play it.
We don't even run a reserves competition at the moment (coming back next season tbf) so its not an indication of a well run sport.
Originally Posted by Despondent Dave
It's really complex.
I do feel that the game doesn't get value for money regularly enough, right across the sport.
The marquee players haven't put bums on seats or become the media personalities the sport needs.
At the bottom end there are too many that cost a lot to bing over but don't give that much more than a local.
Consider Thompson at Saints. Even the Thompson of late offers nothing more that Batchelor could deliver for a lot less,
leaving a top end salary plus house etc etc to invest in a couple of project signings.
Batchelor only got a shot when Thompson struggled.
If your instinct is always to go Fed first then it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy.
Leaving aside who has been signed, I am disappointed that we have gone for more Feds and maxed out the quota.
5 was acceptable and I was hoping that this would be managed down to 3 to 4 on an ongoing basis.
It is difficult there is not an easy simple answer. Overseas players are needed and welcome
but the sport goes for too many and doesn't always get value.
Would be happy with Matty English coming in at the end of next season as a replacement for LMS or Amor.
It shouldn't have to be reserves at the expense of foreign/quota players or vice versa. Definitely there should be a bigger focus on grass roots and reserves but I'd controversy have an unlimited quota on overseas players.
We've seen Foster and Wingfield both progress to the first team despite signing overseas players in their positions. Super league teams need bigger squads due to increased injuries, longer seasons and covid.
Clubs who only sign over priced and half rate foreign players at the expense of their own junior development will get nowhere and potentially get relagated or go bust and shouldn't be in SL in that case. We are a salary capped sport and are under huge financial pressure. I just see how any club could afford more quota players than are already allowed. Most bottom half of the table clubs are already paying overs to get them to sign in the first place.
I think Saints are a good example to the rest of the league when it comes to squad recruitment and management. Occasionally we get it wrong or very wrong on overseas signings but that's life and we usually do our due diligence and sign players who add value.
I said this last week - every club/player is different. Some want things announced and out of the way so they can concentrate on their rugby, some want to wait til the end of the season, some want to coincide it with other incomings/outgoings.
Fages has signed for Huddersfield and it will be announced when all parties decide it is the right time.
NEVER WRITE OFF THE SAINTS
James Bell announcement incoming...
Originally Posted by Despondent Dave
And confirmed
Top work from the club again, really happy with how we are shaping up.
NEVER WRITE OFF THE SAINTS
Mata’utia, Sironen, Knowles, Bell, Batchelor and Wingfield. Gonna be plenty of competition for the back row with 6 competing for likely 4 spots in the 17. That’s without Hurrell if he signs and Matty Foster as well. Plenty of depth there but hopefully having the reserves back will help give players game time.
Forwards win games. The backs decide by how much.