Official West Hartlepool RFC

Whilst clubs including Rovers, West and I am assuming Billingham, all maintain that they do not pay players. (Probably factualy correct). It is a fact of modern rugby that some players at most levels receive "expenses" from sponsors. This may be as little as a few pints after the game or an agreed "gift" every week.

It is pointless to argue on here which clubs pay which players and unfortunatley "expenses" has become a significant part of attracting good players to a club.

If a sponsor chooses to renumerate a certain player thats upto them, its their money and they'll spend it how they see fit.

I'm not saying its right or wrong but accept it and move on.

I have heard, from several sources, that Billingham do pay plays through different means.

A bit like the old adage "Tynedale don't pay players"

Pardon my French but - "My Arse!"

I have not heard from Billingham high command the statement 'we don't pay our players,' so this dig is not aimed at them, but instead at the supporters who claim so...

Please stop any pretence, it's embarrassing!

northern if you go on the billingham web site and go to chairmans page, you will see he says on there about who pays at billingham m8. I know for a fact not one player at billingham is pay for playing for our club. If you look all the players who played last season came throght the youth set up no super stars here m8. Anyway guys cant wait to see a good game of friendly rugby played tomorrow lol

Who honestly cares who pays players and who doesn't pay players? If a club has done well enough to secure sponsorship allowing them to attract players by paying them, then well done to them for getting that money in the first place.

On the flipside, if a club is fortunate like Billingham, West Hartlepool, even Rovers and in fairness, to a certain degree Tynedale and Westoe to have a decent enough flow of youth players to field a side without paying many or any of their players (or paying over the odds) then also well done to them.

I think the only clubs that perhaps should be open to critisism, are those that don't really have the money, but aren't prepared to settle for using their youth players, and so therefore spend money they don't have on attracting marginaly better players. You don't have to be a genius to work out that those runnig these clubs are spoiling their clubs in 2 ways, one, by not giving their youth a chance, and two by running the club into debt. We all know who these clubs are, without having to name them, but I'll give you a clue, they'll have normally have a vastly different team from one year to the next, and probably less than 5 of their 1st 15 having played junior rugby for the club.

Ok northern you win all the players at billingham get payed from the 1st team all the way down to the 3rds lol. opps sorry imean they pay £3.50 to play each game. Would be nice to know who you do think gets payed for playing at our club...

BORING

£3.50!!! We are going to have to increase ours then!! :oD:oD:oD

The sad story is if clubs want to be in the higher leagues (National 2 upwards) they have to bring in recruits.

The lower clubs are in league terms the more home grown their first teams are. The higher clubs are in leagues terms the more recruits they have... !

Blaydon and Westoe are clubs with very little home grown players whilst Rovers, Seaton etc etc are clubs with many. Blaydon are Westoe are in the higher leagues, whilst clubs like Rovers, Seation Etc Etc are in the lower leagues. Read in to that as you will.

To get to the top you need to recruit. After the demise of West, Mowden and Tynedale were the leading clubs in the North East behind Falcons for a long time. This was because they recruited. Blaydon soon followed and more recently Westoe. All these clubs recruited in order to play in the higher leagues.

The question is what you want from your club and what do you want it to be. Westoe and Blaydon seemed to prepared to recruit, and play in a higher league, whilst clubs like Boro, and now Mowden are prepared to play in the league below but have lots of home growners with the added recruit whilst clubs like Rovers, Gosforth etc don't recruit to any great extent and play at a lower level still.


P.s Billinghamoldgit . All I'm saying is that I don't believe, in addition to many other people, that Billingham is entirely amatuer. I'm not saying that is a bad thing,in fact the opposite, nor am I saying that Billingham is more or less amateur than other clubs in the area/league.

Does any of this who pays who nonsense matter in the slightest?! If it does matter then why?

Northern - Mowden had virtually no home grown players in their entire first team squad a couple of seasons ago its all about circumstances not choice! If the cash/backing is there then clubs will use it - if not they'll fall down the leagues...personally I don't think it matters at all players will find their own level no matter what club they start at.

you're right, most players will just find there own level and re. the cash.

However I wonder if all clubs would splash the cash if they had it, or whether clubs who have splashed cash would do it again. Having a mainly home grown team does create a good club atmosphere. Alot of people at Mowden seemed to be happy playing in National three with lots of home grown lads in the first team squad.

2 seasons ago there were quite a few home growners in Mowdens squad, same with last season. 3 seasons ago may have been a different story.

Hey northern, you could bore at international level, you're that good at it.

i'll keep it short and snappy next time, so you don't strain yourself.