Rob, Fair point about the impracticality of moving teams regularly. (Thought: Perhaps if we all recruited locally then we would get more settled players?)
> How many Clapham players would play for Red if they happened > to move to Leicester ? I'll let the Clapham players answer that question (!) but the way you put it reveals the same old attitude that I'm on about. Is playing for the very best team you can get on the single most important aim of your playing career Rob? And what makes a team good? Is it simply down to their roster? Why not ask "How much better could Red be if a Clapham player joined us?" Clapham are better than Red due to training and experience not some god-given gift (what have I started?!). I'm asking that if more people with said experience and training were to spread it around then we would have a better sport. Full respect to Clapham (sic!) for doing exactly this by maintaining a second team, running the winter league, etc ,etc I vaguely remember a rather mediocre Sheffield uni graduates team (who folded not so long ago) who discovered that the addition of an experienced American(?) player could give them the confidence to beat the best team in the country at the time. What does that tell you? I'm sure this will now decend into farcical Red vs Clapham jibes (Roger? Harvey?) but your somewhat mercenary attitude is very frustrating for those clubs who want to develop. If we are to grow we need more players like you to do the right thing and help out locally. You can do both - play with your mates AND help out a local team - perhaps you already do? "Think not what your team can do for you but what you can do for your team" or is that saying a bit dated nowadays? Ben
