I know as a Hull KR fan this thread will be reacted to as me defending my own club but, why is having homegrown players in your squad so important?
If they are good enough they will be signed, if not they won't. Australia has a pool of players vastly bigger than Britain. Therefore there are more quality players available from down under.
So we get hammered by the Aussies in Internationals, I don't know many people that really care at all about international RL.
Rugby is a sport, made for entertainment for spectators. If overseas players create more entertaining rugby then so be it!

Overseas players do add to Super League. But you should be able to link the profile of the sport to the international game. The Union TV deal is bigger than League's despite lower viewing figures. It's because the sport has a national profile, afforded to it by the international game.

If we don't have a competitive England team we don't have a viable international game (Only 2 teams). If we don't have that it reduces the profile of the sport and it's the reason none of the news agencies or newspapers will touch league. It's so small fry.

The attitude of clubs like Wigan and Hull KR is like yours, they care only for their own club and it's success and don't have the long term vision to see how developing English players is key to the sports' future.

Rugby is never going to be a global sport. It has one good international team and that isn't goingto change much.
What difference to global exposure do you think having one other reasonable team is going make?

because, investing in youth development is how we improve and how we move the game forward, relying on australian cast offs will simply portray us as a 2nd rate sport.

and if we do invest in better youth development then all the best players wont play in Aus, they will play here, and we will have brought them through, improving our game, making it more marketable and making it more sustainable.

it is integral to health of the game for us to develop our own players, to find more players, and to improve the game, and it is unfair to expect only a few clubs to do it.

Also, Hull KR only benefit from having so many overseas players because other clubs dont, if they did then the benefit of signing a player like Mason would lessen

Recruiting overseas players doesn't lower the quality of local players.
It just means only the strongest local players make it. Surely playing lower quality would make it a second rate sport rather than playing better imports?

It does weaken the quality of local players though, these players would improve given more first team game time, filling the team with old or second rate Aussies is just pathetic and a sign a club has either weak or no youth development.

yes it does. If clubs dont need to bring through top quality youngsters, they wont bother. They invest less in scouting, coaching, facilities, bring in fewer players, take fewer risks and generally invest less time, money and effort into bringing through top quality youngsters, We wouldnt get the best RL players in the country, we would get the best RL players that fell into our laps.

And for a while bringing through our own players would mean the league was weaker than the NRL, but when clubs start really investing in youth, when the competition isnt who can bring through they biggest Aussie name, or who can get the most value out of an average player like Rhys Lovegrove or Ben Fisher, and becomes who can produce the most juniors of the highest quality, then we will bring through more players of a higher quality from different areas, meaning our league can be better than the NRL, our national team can be better than the Aussies and our game can become bigger, better and more sustainable

I beg to differ. Players will still be given oppertunities at clubs with more Aussies but only the better players.
Do you really think that if clubs had equally good local players, they would still bring in imports?

So average players like Ben Fisher & Rhys Lovegrove are an improvement over 2 players in the KR 18s or 20s?

Giving younger players a chance will not only improve them, but will improve the team because who's going to show more heart & effort - a local lad who's supported KR his whole life, or Willie Mason who's come over for a 150k a year pension?

Take Cas as an example; 13 players have played this year who have come through the system, would they have been given the chance to play if Cas had 10 overseas players? no and some of them look to be gems - Arundal, Milner & Walker especially.

If you are talking about the cream of the crop, then that's true. There's nothing wrong with bringing over the Vainikolo's, Renouf's, Lauitiiti's, Webb's, Lyon's and Hoffmann's of this world.

The problem is that clubs have been bringing over complete idiots from Australia, complete with an elaborately acquired EU passport, on short-term deals. Those are the players that are the issue. They aren't that much better than the players we have and they aren't here for the long haul. They're just here because it is an "easy" option.

You realize we signed Fisher to help get us promoted from NL1 where he was far, far better than any player Rovers could produce and on a par with Mark Smith as the best Hooker in the league?
And this season Rhys Lovegrove has been our best prop by some distance?


And you know for a fact that Willie Mason will not maintain his form from this season, where he has been in the top 10 for line breaks and metres made?

Like when Webster was a good Scrum Half? Fisher is below average yet he's stayed on a few years longer then he should have.



Sounds more like the rest of the props have been average if he's been KRs best.



Way to miss the point