The Parramatta Eels are currently undertaking a mid-season review of their football operations. Whilst the scope of the review has not been made public, there is a major component of the football program which should definitely come under the microscope. That component – the joint venture with the Wentworthville Magpies – is the subject of this week’s spotlight.
A young Maloney in action for Wenty.
The history of the Eels/Magpies joint venture dates back to 2008 when the Wenty club first fielded Parramatta contracted players in the NSW Cup of that year. Success was immediate as the team, led by current Origin star James Maloney, took out the inaugural premiership in the revamped competition.
Putting that success into perspective, the Eels had been Premiers in the competition’s predecessor – The Premier League – from 2005 to 2007. It was a promising start, built on previous successes, but the good times have been rare since.
This may not be a popular stance. It may not be possible in the immediate future. Nonetheless, it is my belief that Parramatta’s joint venture with Wentworthville should be scrapped – and the sooner the better.
This is not meant as a criticism of the Wentworthville Club, or shifting some of the blame for Parramatta’s failures on the Magpies, but it is clear that this arrangement is not beneficial for either party.
Let’s consider some of Parramatta’s likely motivations for the current arrangement.
Financial
The Wenty ISP squad consists of both Eels and Magpie contracted players. The staff are contracted to both clubs. The matches are staged at Ringrose Park. There is undoubtedly a bottom line saving for Parramatta based on these costs alone.
Venue
With Parramatta playing as a tenant at larger stadiums, it’s no longer possible to stage three grades of football at either ANZ Stadium or the new Western Sydney Stadium. Some weeks, only one match is played. Having the joint venture with Wentworthville provides a satisfactory home ground for both the ISP and the Jersey Flegg sides.
Fear
Correct. I am listing fear as a motivator. There has long been the fear that not locking in a venture with Wentworthville would effectively leave a very wide open door for a club like the Storm to set up camp in the middle of the Parramatta District through the Magpies.
This is understandable. The Raiders are now set up at Mounties. Manly took Blacktown Workers from Penrith. It’s not ideal, but regardless of any senior arrangements with these clubs, their juniors still participate in their local leagues.
For Wentworthville, the benefits are not as clear.
The Magpies are a rugby league club supported by a massive and successful Leagues Club. That club isn’t burdened with financing an NRL team, but it’s charter would include the propagation of rugby league in the district. An arrangement with an NRL club would provide a pathway for junior and senior players, as well as putting the club in an elite NSW competition at a reduced cost. Beyond that, it would still be a financial burden.
So what aspects of the joint venture are a concern?
Let’s begin with Wenty. As the minor partner in the venture, the Magpies are subject to the decisions of the Parramatta Eels. The Eels determine which players will be made available each week, and this can be changed at the last minute.
Better times early in 2018.
If the Eels had all players available, the Magpies could literally be filled with Parramatta contracted players. This rarely happens, and last minute changes to the team filter down through all levels of Wenty’s senior teams. Every grade can have major disruptions, and as a club they have minimal control over this.
The downside for the Eels is more profound, as it impacts development pathways, and in my opinion, the identity and culture of the Parramatta club.
Consider this.
Parramatta have a junior pathway that commences with under 14 and under 15 talent development squads. The junior elite then transition through the Harold Matthews and SG Ball competitions with the Jersey Flegg Cup the last port in their age team journey.
What then happens?
After wearing the Parramatta jersey through six years of junior development, they then don a black and white Wentworthville jersey. How does this make them Parramatta aspirational, or benefit the culture of the Eels?
And it doesn’t just impact juniors on their pathways. At the top end of the Eels roster, players in the top 30 who don’t make the top grade, who train in blue and gold with their NRL mates, are then further separated from their colleagues by being handed the Wenty jersey. Furthermore, they are then asked to play on a separate day at a suburban venue.
The counter to this concern is a club like the Melbourne Storm who pack their lower grade players onto a plane to Queensland at the end of the week to play on parks up north. It hasn’t impacted their development or the club’s success.
To that, I would argue that the Eels shouldn’t do what they don’t need to do, and there is far more to gain from having a development pathway which engenders a deep association between the player and the club. NRL teams such as Penrith, St George, Newcastle, Canterbury and the Warriors have all tinkered with a joint venture feeder club. They’ve now taken back their “reserve grade” identities. All bar the Bulldogs are now enjoying an NRL resurgence.
As a someone who’s watched a fair share of Wenty games over years, I would also question the benefit of playing young Eels players in an ISP team carrying Ron Massey Cup players.
In a traditional reserve grade team, there would be a mix of senior graded players with a few age team players on their path to first grade. For Wenty, we see young Parra players playing alongside park footballers every week.
Case in point, a number of weeks ago Jaeman Salmon was selected in the centres for Wenty in a match at ANZ Stadium. He’s a versatile player, and the coaches probably wanted to see how he handled that position. Unfortunately, the Wenty contracted halves that day performed poorly and as a result Salmon had little to show.
To clarify, this post is not meant to bag Wenty contracted players. There are some whole-hearted footballers who give their all. I enjoy watching matches at a venue like Ringrose as you hear all the calls and feel the big hits.
However, every player in our system should either be capable of at least filling in for the NRL, or be under consideration for an Eels senior contract in the future. This is not the case for virtually every Wenty contracted player. They don’t have to meet the same training requirements. Their performances don’t enhance their prospects of playing first grade or earning an NRL deal. They aren’t Parramatta players. They are lucky to train once per week with their team.
Last week Peter Wynn visited the Eels captain’s run. I witnessed him showing a collection of different Parra jerseys, including the Famous Grouse jersey, to the players. Eels media shared the images with supporters.
Flegg to ISP shouldn’t mean a different jersey.
Peter was sharing the Blue and Gold identity with the players. Successful teams have players who take pride in wearing that team’s colours. Parramatta have the opportunity to bring talented young players through their system and have them aspirational about wearing the Parra jersey, not a black and white strip. To have time out from that goal, when they’re only one step away, seems illogical.
When most considerations of the joint venture are examined, it literally becomes a question of cost savings vs hampering pathways. When the lack of NRL success also impacts costs, and with a club that needs to develop better players in a winning culture, I would argue that Parramatta can no longer afford the Wenty cost savings. It sounds odd but it’s true – we can’t afford the savings!
Developing Parramatta aspirational players is paramount. When they’re on the verge of NRL, playing them alongside better quality Eels players in an Eels jersey must be our goal.
At this crucial time of assessing our football operations, I hope that this significant aspect of our pathways is not ignored.
Eels forever!
Sixties
(Credit to Steve Little for the Jersey Flegg photo)
Sixties this is a very thought provoking article. However given the lateness of the hour and the fact that I have already finished my hot cup of Milo (my apologies to our poster of the same name) and in bed I may not be at my analytical best to absorb all that you have laid out.
I must confess that I have little understanding of the complexities and have never questioned the arrangement in my mind. In saying that you have sparked my interest in the issue. Firstly let me say that I am not aware of the magnitude of savings the club gets by this arrangement with Wenty and secondly how would the ISP roster be filled with 100% Parra contracted players.
Would this mean players would be promoted thru the age teams faster than they currently are in order to fill the squad? The last thing that you would want is young players plunged into open age competition before their time. On the other hand I could see how young players playing alongside the likes of someone like David Gower and others like him as a very good way of mentoring the players coming thru.
So long as this was done with planning and consideration of the players wellbeing I can see the benefits. But given the small number Eels contracted players currently playing in the Wenty side there maybe some stretching of resources.
At the end of the day I guess that it will depend of the size of the gap that they would need to make up if the alliance with Wenty is ended. I have a view that when making business profitable or in this case reducing the losses the only way to do this is to increase revenue. The same cant be achieved thru cutting costs as a long term solution.
As a matter of interest I note some weeks ago that Wyong has cut ties with the Roosters saying that they are getting little out of the deal given consideration to what it costs them,
John, as it stands, 20 year olds who graduate from Flegg, who don’t earn a top 30 contract or rookie contract with the Eels, would need to get a deal through Wenty or some sort of Parra/Wenty arrangement to remain in our system. I’d much rather see them on Parra second tier contracts, playing in Parra jerseys.
As for Flegg players getting a run in ISP, it happens now but I question what they learn alongside RM Cup players.
Sixties what’s your take on a internal review at the moment? Should it be from someone not affiliated with the club. Personally it looks like Arthur could be getting more support in the football program.
I also feel Peter Gentle is a massive loss and a great gain for Souths.
I don’t have an issue with an internal review at this stage. There would be a review every year, it’s simply been expedited and will obviously be far more critical given this year’s performances. I am very keen to see what is recommended, as we need to be back on track ASAP. Facilities, staffing, the Wenty pathway – I need to see answers.
I liked Peter Gentle as a coach and as a bloke. I don’t see his departure as being the cause of our slide. And as for Peter, I spoke to him earlier this year and he’s happy working much, much closer to home.
John its ok mate and its marvellous what a difference Milo makes…..
Sixties, this is a very timely post, and I have wondered about the arrangement for some time now and in all honesty I do not see the current set up really benefiting either Wenty or the eels, the way the two comps are set up are in many ways poles apart in the way both clubs can operate.
Wenty in many ways are more disadvantaged by the current arrangement than the eels, as Wenty have no idea who out of the extended bench NRL players they will have available to them, I also believe the players on that bench are in the same boat, but at different ends, being picked they would be looking at an NRL run, but end up back in ISP, week in and out, or is that just this years events?
The arrangement I believe gives no real incentive to eels players to reach and play at their strengths in a go between competition, also playing at Ringrose and the general number of ISP grounds while standards are better than in the past, provide no real atmosphere for the players to get into the game, in fact based on my years following not just the eels but many country RL sides, I would say what I have experienced even at the Wyong ground is below that of such places as Werris Creek, Peter Wynn’s old town, likewise with the nearby Quirindi teams, WCK no longer has a RL team.
To me its a sad state when we have modern grounds and with playing surfaces that can be played on in heavy rain, that we can only see one game, in the old playing grounds where rain would cause a cancellation if too bad but on other days be so wet and muddy that one could not identify the players owing to the mud, why is it that at least 2 games are not held on match day?
I am all for a separation and for the eels to run their own ISP team, consisting of players that can play for both ISP & NRL, The current rosters of having 17 players available for each game means 34 players would have to be contracted/eligible, and increase of 4 on how many are required now. Using the pathways setup, there could or should be 4-6 players available to play in either the NRL &/or ISP matches. Play also on the same day and two matches at the NRL teams venue. If we are to have our own eels ISP team then we need them to play at the eels game days and venues.
Ideally the same with the Flegg side as well.
I noticed this morning in one of the NRL web sites a list of clubs and how many players have been used by all clubs, the lowest being 22 players while the eels sit at 2nd with 28players being used, that is all but the whole NRL contracted players, having been used.
Based on those numbers being correct, we have used all bar one NRL player in the main team, as its been said we had one NRL spot open before the June 30 deadline.
That’s an interesting thought Colin regarding the number of players allowed to play NRL. So every ISP team acting as a “Reserve Grade” has at least 4 players who can’t play NRL. This suggests that the top 30 idea does not work, and makes no incentive for clubs to bring in young players.
Perhaps what Parra and Wenty need to do is to renegotiate the current deal rather than to scrap it altogether. Maybe Wenty acts as a feeder to a Parra ISP, so Wenty contracted players can at least aspire to play in the blue and gold. The NRL should also advise what they see is the best solution for every club as it is clear the current situation is not ideal.
Longfin, the greatest concern for me is that we create a disconnect from the Eels when the players get very close to NRL. Our own system needs to produce players who aspire to play for Parra.
The number of players wouldn’t be an issue Colin. Instead of players being on second tier Wenty contracts, the players outside top 30 and rookie contracts become Parra second tier contracts. Of course I’m being bold there with money that’s not mine, but that’s how it would run, and you would also use Flegg players when suited.
If Parra can wear the cost, I think the only issue is around venues.
Sixties, my thinking is that if we have a need to fit up for 2 teams, that being NRL and ISP, there would have to be 17 players for each of the two teams, straight off that’s 34, being the run on squad and the 4 interchange players. Given the need to have 30 players on NRL contracts, that is if I read things correctly, you could have another 6 players that are development players signed as such and be permitted to play in either comp, when injuries take place, in one or both squads.
Of those extra 6, at least 4 would be needed for bench spots, either ISP or NRL, meaning that 2 are essentially left out, but they could drop back to Flegg if not needed, only difference would be they go back to an eels team in Flegg rather than Wenty in ISP.
If we are wanting to have an all eels playing roster, rather than linking to a feeder club as we do now, we keep the jnr league squads all in our/reworked system.
Any change would need tweaking in setting it up but the emphasis to the players is that we are providing a new pathways that allows players to show out enough in order to progress to the top in NRL levels, and playing as an Eels player in each team level.
With the way it is now, and the NRL squad having to be 30 players, it really is a hard base even for Wenty as there is going to be at least 13 of their ISP team eels contracted players, (once the full 30 man squad is signed) no doubt that Wenty don’t especially like it, and the players in the same boat as well..
Money
Colin I read somewhere that Wyomg are cutting tied with the Roosters. They are basically saying that they are not getting value for money.
To your knowledge is this true?
I hear the same thing John, and seems that North Sydney is also in the mix with the bunnies looking to pull out of that arrangement and the chooks to take over from the bunnies. IIRC, it has something to do with Carney being signed to play with Norths.
Unfortunately , the 30 graded NRL players and restrictions below that is another initiative from Toddy Boy. Struggling to find any idea from the CEO that has benefits the game overall.
Not having a game prior to the NRL is impacting on Crowds, atmosphere and supporters who travel long distances to attend . This needs addressing immediately and certainly ahead of the opening of the Western Sydney Stadium, otherise it could reflect a similar situation .
Don’t know how it works at other NRL clubs, and the difficulty that Wenty would be open to approaches from an NRL club wanting to get an in to our junior league would have to be addressed.
The review is belated in a sense, and it’s vitally important to see that the structure is in place for a big club. The coaching etc addresses itself in results.
We have someone as Head of Recuitment who has such a low profile, that even supporters were not aware of his role. Maybe than answer is to get an enthusiastic recruiter there, most that have some knowledge of the club would like to see Anthony Field step into the senior role and use his knowledge and contacts to employ a recruiter for the junior program .
I would hope that the review process involves talking to all of the staff in the football operation. We need their input about what they need to produce better pathways and ultimately results.
Yes Sixties, good,informative stuff. It seems we need to revisit what the major objective should be. We might think we have clear objectives now but there’s too many and they conflict. One club, one jersey sounds like it may pull things into better shape.
Remember as a kid when the other team turned up short on numbers and your coach made you put their jersey on to even up, I used to hate it. Maybe the professional players of today just accept they won’t always wear the NRL team jersey, but you can’t help but feel that many would have a touch of doubt about it, particularly if it was their development club.
There’s an argument that if the player is dedicated and talented, that pulling on a different jersey won’t make a difference. Indeed, Gowie plays well whenever he’s sent to Wenty. However, there aren’t too many Eels players who’ve benefited from spending time at Wenty. In fact, match days are more a case of learning bad habits. Again not bagging Wenty, it’s simply a huge difference between NRL and Ron Massey
again yesterday another wenty debacle
From the moment the kids enter our junior squads I would imagine they are coached and expected to be team first, show pride and respect for the jumper, club, have same expectations re training/ behavior etc. To me it is ridiculous to do all that work, including money and time and then suddenly get these players to the step before first grade and throw them into a team that is made up with different training/ behaviour expectations, skill development, commitment, different jumper, different playing venue. Rather than saving money it may be costing as I have no doubt all these differences would slow or stop some of the progression to first grade.
I concur with most here; one club and jersey seems the right fit; and the logistics and costs should be covered with the right set up at coach / club level.
Sixties, what an outstanding summation of a venture that is both flawed and certainly not working, like you I watch many of the ISP and Ron Massey games at Wenty and venture out to St Mary’s from time to time to watch their RMC team, as I a have a nephew in that team, and I genuinely enjoy park footy for the same reasons that you described.
Wenty leagues is an outstanding licensed club, the football club however, really should have a good look at the professional manner in which St Mary’s not only run their football club, but also the way in which they run their game days, Newtown is another good example of outstanding game day management at Henson Park (its a buzz). Wenty do this really poorly, which is a shame because I think they could attract a much better following, if managed correctly, thus the players may not feel so isolated in the black and white Jersey and a the 200 spectators they get to a game.
At the end of the day this issue is going to come down to dollars and cents. Sixties you raise some very good points in your summation which I find hard to challenge
We may not like the outcome but that is how it will play out.
Max is a driven man when it comes down to costs
He should be driven when it comes to costs, as he is taking plenty out of the club and delivering a doughnut.
Tell me this as I don’t really understand it, do we still need an administrator at the club, if so, Why?
One should really take their hat off to Graeme Foster, for attracting the sponsors he has whilst the club is under an administrator!
Pingback: The Spotlight – Wenty And The Parra Pathways | The Cumberland Throw
I played with Hills Bulls for 15 years. There is a massive rivalry between Wenty and most clubs. They are just viewed as a snobby club that buys its players. Most players would not want to be seen dead in a Wenty jersey. It would feel like your Judas pulling it on. Glad to hear that Parra have finally ended there relationship with those grubby, buy 12 year old players, evil Wenty.