WiganWarriorsFans.com

Fraggle posted:

trotski_tgwu posted:
I agree Ian as i heard on boots n all near end of last season that London now has more Rugby League Teams in there Area than there is in Castleford

I didn't see this, but did they mention the ages of these teams? It's no good for the Broncos if there are 100 local teams if they're all under-12's.

True in the short term, Fraggle, but they've got to start somewhere. If those under12's have been playing since under6, thay'll turn out some good players in another 5 years. If they survive in SL that long, that is, which brings us back to the rationale behind the exemption.

GeoffN posted:

Fraggle posted:

trotski_tgwu posted:
I agree Ian as i heard on boots n all near end of last season that London now has more Rugby League Teams in there Area than there is in Castleford

I didn't see this, but did they mention the ages of these teams? It's no good for the Broncos if there are 100 local teams if they're all under-12's.

True in the short term, Fraggle, but they've got to start somewhere. If those under12's have been playing since under6, thay'll turn out some good players in another 5 years. If they survive in SL that long, that is, which brings us back to the rationale behind the exemption.

I agree totally, and very good luck to them. But if this is the case, the people criticising London for not using enough local players maybe need to give them some more time to fully build up the development infrastructure. Things don't happen overnight, or even in 10 years if you're starting at 6 years old!

Fraggle, I seem to remember eons ago when you were probably only in short pants that Wigan lost to Fulham aka Widnes so they should be able to get English players whilst the under 12s are ageing.

Might be the parochial mindset of English players. "London? That's even further away than Hull!" I'm not moving all that way! (unless my girl friend wants me to...)"
Whereas to an Aussie, London is practically next door to Wigan.

Just a thought.

GeoffN posted:
Might be the parochial mindset of English players. "London? That's even further away than Hull!" I'm not moving all that way! (unless my girl friend wants me to...)"
Whereas to an Aussie, London is practically next door to Wigan.

Just a thought.

...and there are quite a lot of Aussies that live in London too!

ian.birchall posted:
Fraggle, I seem to remember eons ago when you were probably only in short pants that Wigan lost to Fulham aka Widnes so they should be able to get English players whilst the under 12s are ageing.

Having short legs, Fraggles have no option but to wear short pants, but I'll grant you that 1980 was quite a long time ago and before my time watching rugby league. Rugby league wasn't something I was even aware of as an 8 year old in north Lancashire. So how many Londoners were playing for Fulham back then?

Interesting article in this weeks League Express on this subject.

Normally an Aussie who does not have an EC passport must get a work permit to play in SL. Getting one of these requires the player to have played a certain amount of first grade NRL and/or is a current international player.

At the moment clubs can get around this requirement by offering a two year contract on a working visa. This is the kind of visa a student might get to come over from Australia on a working holiday.

London and serveral other teams have players over here using this loophole. Basically look out for any new signing who was not playing first grade NRL who has a two year deal and there is a good chance this is the sort of visa they are on.

The RFL has agreed with the Home Office that such visas can not be applied to RL players in the future as of next season. It will also apply to any players signed for this season IIRC.

So as of next season the only Australian or Kiwi players a club can sign will be those with NRL first grade experience unless thay have an EC passport.

It will definately affect London but one or two others as well.

Dave