U18 Academy Games and Australia U18s
- Thread starter bhim
- Start date
Backintheolddays
Billy Sheehan (19)
No surprise there
Hercules Von Grimmelshaus
Allen Oxlade (6)
Same as Walsh last year, tick the box of getting the G&G jersey in Union then sign the league contract
The Ghost of Raelene
David Codey (61)
If it's announced I wonder what they do next year since he's only in year 11?
I assume overlooked like Walsh was even though I'm not sure it's the right move long term for the sport.
I assume overlooked like Walsh was even though I'm not sure it's the right move long term for the sport.
fortheloveofthegame
Bob McCowan (2)
It is the correct move, if the boys want to be treated like professionals then they should be. They cant expect rugby to develop them over an alternative if they’ve pledged to the NRL for cash. I think that within 6 months the claim that RA signed almost all the current U18 squad will ring hollow. I know several are currently in discussion with NRL clubs.
Sword of Justice
Arch Winning (36)
Counterpoint would be that by giving those leaguies a formative experience that they enjoy and benefit from they are more likely to engage with Super clubs down the road after their first or second NRL contracts. I think RA is essentially waiving the white flag with those players because they know rookie contracts are so much juicier in league.
There’s definitely a balance required though, otherwise our Super sides will have no pipeline.
fortheloveofthegame
Bob McCowan (2)
The kids get their formative experience at U15 and U16 level, once they have gone pro for the NRL then they shouldn’t be selected for U18 rep teams.
That is spot on!! We keep spending our limited resources on developing players for the NRL!! Why? Then the poor bloke below him who didn't get the chance is expected to step up with no development. Crazy!!
The Ghost of Raelene
David Codey (61)
I'll be argumentative for the sake of it here and say if the "poor bloke below him" couldn't earn the spot in the initial side are we not wasting money anyway?
Shouldn't Rugby be about winning matches which engages more people and players in the long run anyway.
Rugby has always had kids go to League even before NRL sides where footing fees. I don't think we should shun anyone available. A kid like Makasini will be up for contract by the time he's 20 years old and Rugby.
Again, I'm doing this to be contrarian to your'e point even though I do think Rugby should be more proactive on their own but we shouldn't treat some kid like shit because he makes a career choice.
Shouldn't Rugby be about winning matches which engages more people and players in the long run anyway.
Rugby has always had kids go to League even before NRL sides where footing fees. I don't think we should shun anyone available. A kid like Makasini will be up for contract by the time he's 20 years old and Rugby.
Again, I'm doing this to be contrarian to your'e point even though I do think Rugby should be more proactive on their own but we shouldn't treat some kid like shit because he makes a career choice.
Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
Rugby isn't treating him like shit. It is simply making a decision to put it's resources and efforts into someone who is more likely to provide a return on that investment.
And a career choice, but it's very name, implies that the kid is accepting one thing and turning down something else.
It's like a guy who proposes to a woman and sets a date for the marriage but still wants to sleep with the old girlfriend until the wedding day. And the old girlfriend keeps feeding him and sleeping with him hoping one day he will divorce the future wife and come back to her.
In the before pro-rugby days the Wallabies backs were always young because after a few shirts the NRL clubs came calling with $s that were hard to turn down.
It's just a bit earlier these days.
Practically not sure how can you can prevent someone like Makasini (who had obvious connections to league and possibly even rumours about a contract being near) playing in the top squad. Afterall if you exclude him what's to say the next kid up isn't going to do the same thing.
Even for a kid like Walsh who had a signed NRL deal, I'd argue if his contract allows it and he wants to play, then why don't we put the best Aus U18 team on the field.
There are still plenty of other rep opportunities with the various other squads.
It's just a bit earlier these days.
Practically not sure how can you can prevent someone like Makasini (who had obvious connections to league and possibly even rumours about a contract being near) playing in the top squad. Afterall if you exclude him what's to say the next kid up isn't going to do the same thing.
Even for a kid like Walsh who had a signed NRL deal, I'd argue if his contract allows it and he wants to play, then why don't we put the best Aus U18 team on the field.
There are still plenty of other rep opportunities with the various other squads.
Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
Practically it's not hard.... you don't select him if he has signed a contract.
If he wants to play league, then he can play for the Kangaroo U18s team. If the kid after him wants to play league, he can do the same. Put time, energy and resources into U18 kids who actually want to play rugby.
Sword of Justice
Arch Winning (36)
But that’s my point. They do want to play rugby as well as League in the same way I want to eat steak and pizza but can’t at the same time. There’s so many reasons why a young player may choose one sport over another and if the paradigm shifts and they felt engaged playing Rugby at a high level then RA remains a chance of bringing them back. I would be very receptive to the flip side argument to expand rep comps to include more players.
How do you know. Rugby isn't a party to the contract.
Might even include a clause that prevents either the player or club announcing or acknowledging it until X date.
I get the whole only wanting to invest in and play those who will continue, but you simply can't tell, unless you've got the $$s to go down the path of you can only play for this squad if you sign this 2yr contract.
Last edited:
Bullrush
Geoff Shaw (53)
Off the top of my head, you could start asking them to sign a commitment contract - one that gets the kids to replay a certain amount of money if they sign to another code within 2 years.
You could have exemptions that waive this in certain situations. It won't stop kids going to the NRL but league clubs would need to at least have to pay something for the resources union has put into a kid.
You could have exemptions that waive this in certain situations. It won't stop kids going to the NRL but league clubs would need to at least have to pay something for the resources union has put into a kid.
Sword of Justice
Arch Winning (36)
Dude what? It’s a free market society. Besides, they could just do the exact same to us.
fortheloveofthegame
Bob McCowan (2)
Sorry but that is BS. Does Goldman Sachs train bankers currently contracted to JPMorgan?
Sword of Justice
Arch Winning (36)
But it’s schoolboy rep footy. It’s amateur and the idea is to beat other Rugby teams. If Goldman Sachs had an opportunity to take free labour from whiz kids for a summer to beat their competitors they’d absolutely take it. Those kids are not joining their competitors after but a different segment altogether.
fortheloveofthegame
Bob McCowan (2)
Agree, Yes they would, but the competitor would not allow it unless is was to their advantage. So it’s clear that rugby league believes there is advantage in having their professionally contracted players participate in rugby rep games. It’s a zero sum game, that is to rugby unions long term disadvantage. Union misses the opportunity to provide development for a player who is more likely to stay in the hand.
Wicked Left Foot
Peter Burge (5)
100% agree. The idea that there isn’t another kid waiting in the wings that couldn’t benefit from the opportunity of playing rep footy is preposterous. There is enough good talent out there wanting to play Rugby. The argument that by giving the NRL signings a taste of Wallaby footy will bring them back into the fold at a later date is a flawed argument. Apart from Sua’ili’i how has that gone for Australian Rugby? Put more value in the Gold jersey and only make it available to those not signed to ”the other“ code. Whilst you won’t stop all players defecting to league, you will make some think twice about signing.