Whilst it’s roughly related can you explain to me the reasoning for getting rid of colts
@1910? Because the unnecessary cost argument QRL dished out was piss poor. Absolutely baffling. I think they actually give a fair bit of ground to other codes by cutting the quality of development or even the opportunity to play rugby league in that sort of environment after the age of 19. It’s abhorrently poor that if we have players in our system not up to scratch in cup older than 19 or at the conclusion of the Meninga season they are playing BRL, the system is bad enough in comparison to NSWRL development opportunities already why give them more ground.
In brisbane the union set up for local footy is very strong in the senior grades of footy. Colts and Opens have a strong development system for each club where the quality of Union players is very strong. Union requires a lot more physical development before being chucked into the higher grades and then into the professional system so they find themselves in a position where the quality of Union in colts is very high as that’s the natural progression for EVERY and I mean EVERY player. I can see a lot of rejects going to Union for that opportunity to still go pro or play in a more professional environment than playing BRL or quitting.
I’ve been strongly of the opinion that the NYC or a national reserve grade must be in place. I think I’d lean towards the NYC simply because I think that’s a product that is more likely to generate money. Especially with a heightened interest in young players/guns. The quality of development in integral positions has dropped considerably since its scrapping. Obviously I’m reading just now that they are looking at bringing back the NYC and my thought always was the general consensus was that the NYC was returning otherwise why else would you scrap development above the age of 19?