Champ as a prem training ground?

[Rothoik]

Rotherham have a no loans policy (unless extenuating circumstances require it- e.g. running out of hookers) and develop a season long squad. We have seent he effects in Nat 1 of teams loading up with prem academy players and the skewing effect it has on results and league positions. However, the young lads probably do benefit from playing competative fixtures involving the more aged and treacherous ( I mean experienced) players as opposed to teenagers and twenties lads. But what is a reasonable number for a match day squad? The rules seem to be quite generous from memory.

Nice new site by the way!

[ROLLO]

Wuss have a loose connection with Bath, I hope that this season it will only be used in a real emergency.

[Dawson9]

Its a controversial topic and the old forum had plenty of debate on it - quite a few clubs use loan arrangements to thieir benefit but with varying levels of success/different models.

Personally I'm in favour of it but with limitations. Using it to develop selected talented young players who arent getting game time at their parents clubs is a benefit to English rugby as a whole imo, as without an A league a lot of those players end up just stagnating and not getting gametime. Some fans think it should be banned outright bar injuries and I can't agree with that - its detrimental to youth development in this country, and nearly every other professional sport has them in some manner. Look at football - loans are widely used to develop young players throughout the football pyramid, and thats a pyramid that is predominantely professional and doesnt have the vast differences between professional -> semi-pro -> amatuer that rugby has even in its 2nd and 3rd divisions. But football does it with limitations - limit on the amount in a match day squad, limited amounts allowed in a season and they dont sign on dual registrations and buzz back and forth between their parent club and the loaning club.

In the Championship I think the club that does it best is Bedford - a strong core group of Bedford players supplemented by a handful of top talent from Saints who are with Bedford for the majority of the season. Benefits Saints, benefits Bedford, gives valuable gametime to some great young players who may go on to represent the national side at some point.

Club that probably did it worse was my own - London Scottish - when we were on a mission to give every single Quins academy player under the sun a game at some point, including guys brought in just to get gametime and never be seen again (A.White, L.Lynach, T.Green etc), and kids who'd rock up and look like it was their first ever professional game and were rabbits in the headlights. Have talked to the parent of a LS player a few times on teh touchline, he relayed how bad it was for the dressing room- play well one week, dropped for a Quins player the next. The 23 changed every week, consistency was awful - players would turn up, give a half hearted run around and then dissapear. Ultimately we were deservingly relegated. Id also argue most of hte players that turned up replicated the Quins 1st XV - aka they werent very good bar a small handful.

Overall - Id say its a good thing, but the rules should be tightened to be more like football on limiting the numbers considerably imo.

[Rothoik]

For me its about allowed numbers and consistencey. If Bedford keep their loan players all season, then everyone knows where they are and the squad becomes established and gelled. I do thin knumbers should be limited to 3 or 4 a season. This then means that the team strength is a reflection of that teams coaching nous and not heavy artillery forged elsehwere. We need to keep developing young talent as our intenrational aged grades just recently went through a tough patch with U18 and U20s taking the odd hammering. There seems to have been a bit of a recovery for England but the saffers are well ahead so game time is pretty crucial in that respect.

[Saladin]

As a supporter of a Prem club I think the numbers should be limited to 4 or 5 season long loans. Allow for extra players to be drafted in to cover for injuries also perhaps. The players we loan out do best when they are at the same club for the whole season .

[Kimbo]

As a supporter of a Prem club I think the numbers should be limited to 4 or 5 season long loans. Allow for extra players to be drafted in to cover for injuries also perhaps. The players we loan out do best when they are at the same club for the whole season .

No thanks.
Maybe one or two season-long loans at a stretch.
No DRs, no other loans (except for genuine emergencies).
The Quins/Sarries type models are just taking the pish.
IMHO of course.

[Saladin]

I do agree that The Sarries/Quins models are not good. I thought 4 or 5 was reasonable. The injury cover I mentioned was for those long term loans, if they are out for the rest of the season for example. I don't like seeing 10 of our players turning out for Ampthill in a match either. There is talk that the Premiership A league may be back next season anyway.

[Kimbo]

Let's hope so. It's about bleddy time the Prem got its act together.

[maire9]

As a supporter of a Prem club I think the numbers should be limited to 4 or 5 season long loans. Allow for extra players to be drafted in to cover for injuries also perhaps. The players we loan out do best when they are at the same club for the whole season .

No thanks.
Maybe one or two season-long loans at a stretch.
No DRs, no other loans (except for genuine emergencies).
The Quins/Sarries type models are just taking the pish.
IMHO of course.

Problem is though there’s a lot of clubs (my own included) who don’t have a big enough squad without borrowing from elsewhere. Nottingham rely heavily on Trent University/Uni of Nottingham and the odd Leicester Tigers player. Last season for instance both our tighthead props got injured at the same time (one just temporarily on concussion protocol; the other is long term and indeed I’m not entirely sure if he’s actually going to be fit for this season) We ended up borrowing from the university system to cover. Granted I’m fairly sure that would be classed as a genuine emergency and that loan would be our only option in that case, especially in a front row position.

Unless of course you are Ealing Trailfinders and have a bottomless pit of money, the funding simply isn’t there to run gigantic squads and have sufficient cover in every position for the vast majority of teams. So while in theory your opinion is not bad, in practice it likely wouldn’t work.

[Dawson9]

As a supporter of a Prem club I think the numbers should be limited to 4 or 5 season long loans. Allow for extra players to be drafted in to cover for injuries also perhaps. The players we loan out do best when they are at the same club for the whole season .

No thanks.
Maybe one or two season-long loans at a stretch.
No DRs, no other loans (except for genuine emergencies).
The Quins/Sarries type models are just taking the pish.
IMHO of course.

Where would you draw the line on that though kimbo?

Is this banning of loans and dr's on principle or just at a certain level? As a coventry fan, you have a number of players in your own academy who've benefited from valuable gametime in the national leagues and beyond - arrangements with Oxford harlequins and the likes. Thats gametime they wont get with coventry at this stage in their development. Should that be restricted too?

I think you have a point on the quins/sarries models and theyve made the whole situation way more controversial than it should be. Every other major sport has youth loans into lower division as standard and noone bats an eyelid, and certainly not with the controversy it has in union. The skewed models some clubs have tried to use has put a controversy onto a situation that really shouldnt be if policied and restricted in a sensible way imho