I know what you are saying but, Lads can only ever go to a club that want's to pay for their services, regardless of which academy they are playing at.
The one thing for sure is that the fewer academies that we have, the easier it becomes for everyone to see who the standout players are, at which point, inevitably, it will come down to pound notes and which clubs have the deepest pockets.

Yes but that system stops clubs picking up the lads they want to sign. I honestly think Cumbrian lads in particular would be shafted by that system given that it's all League One or below there now. Also, will the big SL clubs go scouting further afield if they are going to have trouble signing any gems they unearth? May as well not bother and never find the next Lee Mossop. I don't see why they don't make it a prerequisite to run an academy. Even the National Conference League, which is totally amateur, requires teams to have enough players to field an A team in their regional league (I think). If they can manage it on a shoestring, and teams like Bradford can manage an academy from the Championship, I'm sure we can make it an SL pre-requisite to run an academy (one year's exemption for newly promoted teams, fair enough).

Some interesting points but in my opinion every super league club should be running an academy has a bare minimum,I'm not sure regional academies would work within the heartlands. Let's not forget some of these lads have just left school and are playing rugby alongside doing a college course. Has a parent of an u19s player it would be very difficult to travel any distance to a regional academy and continue studies not to mention the cost of running about,after all these lads although paid they arnt earning a super league salary more getting a few quid in there pocket whilst doing something they love.

Not sure how the hull acadamy runs but people from the hull area I know are very negative towards how it's worked,some lads from last years kids just simply walked away whilst 2 of the better 16s left to join West Yorkshire clubs before staying with the hull franchise.

' Just need to step up to the plate and put some time , money and effort '

Seriously ?

Let me guess , you're a Leeds fan

If you want to sit at the big boys table you have to put on your big boy pants because your excuses just don't cut it.

Well when the ' Big ' boys turn up we'll have to leave the table , till then you'll just have to put up with us

Wontcha

Once again people are trying to have a reasoned discussion , then Smokey turns up all aggressive and childish all in one

the big boys are already there, thats why you are wanting to be judged to a lower standard.

Presented without comment.

Yes it certainly needs time and effort. At Wakefield our academy has usually been somewhere between poor and decent and it would have been easy for us to decide to scrap it altogether and spend the money elsewhere, especially as we can't even spend the salary cap as it is. But we actually put time and effort into improving our academy and it's starting to bear fruit, with us having the current SL young player of the year in Tom Johnstone and the Albert Goldthorpe rookie of the year in Max Jowitt plus a few others starting to come through who we have very high hopes for. We've still got a good way to go but the desire is there from everyone at the club to turn our academy into a consistently successful one and everyone is aware it won't happen overnight.

So if we can do it, the poorest club in Super League, then the likes of Salford should easily be able to better anything we do if they put in the same amount of effort considering the much larger funds they have access to. But the likes of Marwan just want a quick fix and thinks "Wahhh, I've been funding our academy for a few years now and we're still not as good as Wigan or Leeds. What's the point, lets just scrap it."

It's embarrassing to read some posters trying to justify their teams not running an academy when the reality is that they're just lazy short termists who would rather let other teams do the work for them so that they can sign another 30 year old Australian.

In an ideal world we would all receive the rewards for our effort and investment , but as we all know that isn't always the case , it's great to see you having some success , and I hope that it continues , but as we are all aware as well , there are only so many sows ears you can turn into silk purses , you need to get your fair share of quality juniors to work with , and then you need to retain them

It's easy and simple to just say ' work harder ' , ' invest more ' , be better ' , but sometimes no matter how attractive you make yourself , or what resources you throw at it , if the raw talent isn't available to you , you will struggle to produce enough quality players

Now it seems that Leigh and Salford are considering a joint initiative , perhaps this isn't perfect and no doubt there are probably financial savings but hopefully it will be a success , as you state only time will tell

You do realise the argument you are making here is that your club is not, and cannot ever be, a functioning, contributing member of Super League dont you? That your argument is that your club isnt big enough, rich enough, or innovative enough to pay its own way? Your entire argument is predicated on the idea that your club has been promoted in to a league it cannot even hope to properly function in.

The key to making sure that pro academies are able to pick up young players is to ensure that the junior game is in a healthy position - they provide the raw materials after all; and it just isn't. Some clubs are undoubtedly well run and have some great people driving them in a voluntary capacity - but they receive little or no support from the RFL or pro clubs, and are forced to do everything on a shoe-string budget and with the goodwill of parents and local businesses. Furthermore, the quality of coaching at some junior clubs is bloody dreadful, such that many academy coaches pick up a lad with potential, but have to spend significant time re-educating them around core skills and physical development.

I'm not sure what the answer is, because I don't think the RFL have the expertise to manage the junior game any better than the current hodge-podge, but community clubs are in a constant state of duress - and I believe that participation in RL is at an all time low, so it's not set to improve any time soon; so long as that persists, some clubs just won't justify a FT Academy due to a lack of players, so we'll probably see more joint ventures like Hull and the proposed Salford/Leigh arrangement.

Firstly it's not compulsory to join an academy, it's up to the academies themselves to scout for players and it's up to players to sign on with who they want to. Obviously it makes more sense for regional academies to concentrate on players in a catchment area given the age of the players and the availability of resources, but if a lad from Cumbria gets offered a slot in a "Cumbrian Academy" or the Wigan club academy it is up to him to decide where to go. If he goes through the "Cumbrian Academy" and ends up at Whitehaven and then Saints want to sign him then it's up to Saints to make an offer to Whitehaven. If Whitehaven want him to see out his contract then so be it, clubs need to work out for themselves what their best interests are.

What I would do is make it so that when a player signs on with an RFL run academy they agree to go into the draft process at the end, and if they are drafted they will sign a minimum two year contract. If they don't get drafted then they are a free agent, but if they do get drafted there has to be a minimum commitment on the table to make it worthwhile for the clubs. If a player joins an academy and walks away before the draft that's fine, this isn't indentured labour. Ideally the RFL needs an agreement from all clubs they won't sign a player who has walked away from the draft for at least two years afterwards, but if they really must then a fee is due from the club to the academy based on whether they were aligned to the missed draft and what tier they are in e.g. if a player walks away from the "Hull Academy" draft and signs for Castleford then £5k is due, but if they sign for Featherstone then only £2.5k is due, but if they sign for Doncaster it might be £0.5k due (my values purely for example purposes).

In terms of player earnings, the contract for drafted players can stipulate a minimum wage for the two year contract based on what division they go into, if a club ultimately doesn't want to pay that then they don't take the pick. Someone else can take it, or they can hope the player becomes a free agent and they then offer them whatever. I don't think there is a perfect world solution to all this; players might not end up where they ideally want to go, but this is a professional sport and there's not much lower terms. Alternatively, whilst there is a minimum two year commitment there's nothing to stop clubs offering their picks better terms for an extended commitment. point in becoming a professional sportsperson if you want to treat it like a hobby. It's not so different from any other employer who might agree to fund your training or education in return for a commitment to stay with the company for a certain period afterwards.

As far as I'm concerned, No Academy = no Super League place.
That would focus some minds

This is the point GUBRATS was deliberately ignoring because he knows it's the answer. Sadly, because improving the amateur game is a long term, ongoing issue rather than a one-off quick fix, clubs aren't really interested in doing anything other than paying lip service to it.

I'd be all for the joint academies if it was a temporary measure for say 10 years whilst the clubs involved improved the quality and participation in the amateur game in their area. But we all know they're not going to do that.

I'm not sure it's best left to clubs either - some do a better job than others (Leeds and more recently Wire for example, are lauded for their support of junior clubs) but it would fall to already over stretched community departments to do this work, and I'm not convinced they have the expertise or the resources.

For me, the whole system needs a radical overhaul, involving the RFL, pro and semi-pro clubs and crucially, schools, which is by far the most fertile ground in which to find players. A properly designed programme of skills development and coaching methods, together with a more robust coaching qualification to weed out the angry dads, would also be a good start, as would proper support for community clubs - together with a proportionate amount of oversight to justify that investment. I'd also like to see the current age group system of junior leagues looked at - to address the obsession with, and domination by, freakishly big lads; and potentially, remove the league and cup system that promotes a win at all costs mentality at so many amateur clubs.

It's a looming crisis for the future of the game and if the RFL are to have any role in addressing it, they should appoint someone (suitably qualified - not just a.n other ex player) at a senior level to oversee a complete overhaul of the youth game; and bring back development officers - who did in fairness do some of what I've described and with proper oversight and direction, could do more.

I agree with this. I often wonder how many big lads have their talents wasted because they are automatically put at prop and told to stick hold of the ball and drive it in every time they get it, regardless of whether they can pass, kick, step, run fast, dive in at the corner etc. You also see a lot of lads who develop early wasted in their age group too because the coach would rather keep them in the team and stroll through the opposition every week than play him an age up where he will have more of a challenge.

Absolutely. They don't have the skills or the mentality because they've never had to use it. Plus in the mean time they put off a host of other kids when they're knocking them flying for fun.


I agree wholeheartedly with what Bren said on the youth/junior game. I'd also like to see a massive change in the open age system too. Too often it's a violent intimidating atmosphere and we need to change the culture of the game at that level.
We also need proper social 5/6 a side touch rugby leagues establishing. It's a massive untapped market in my opinion.

It's very easy to say they should do this do that,having played,coached watched the game for 30+ years I actually believe most clubs ameuter and professional get a very lot correct more right than wrong.Unfortunately there is a shortage of players especially from high school upwards this is the age when little Johnny realises the game is far tougher than he was expecting and decides to call it a day.

Sounds harsh yes but you just cannot just produce players they need a base in which to learn from,scouts are usually pretty good in getting players onto embed the pathways programmes which are now extensively run across the board. So from the age of 12/13 the vetting process begins in eliminating which lads have what it takes to move them into a scholarship programme. Players just don't come from ameuter clubs into a acadamy environment at the age of 17 or very rarely they do,it's a long drawn out process almost a military process of elimination. Size,skill,ability,fitness and a will to put your body through the pain barrier every day is a requirement to make it to pro level,even then there is a massive amount of luck involved. For anyone who believes you can just set up regional academies and flood them with lads off the street your very misguided on the standards required to become a pro player.

But that's not what the embedded pathway is about, it's about a clear pathway within the game at any age and at any point in the development of players, not "eliminating" them at 13 years old.
The system is changing and changing for the better IMO, I still has a long way to go, however, whilst we have an RFL running the game at tiers 1&2 and independent leagues and bodies governing the community game, we will have a fragmented system that is not fit for purpose.
There isn't a shortage of talent, there is a shortage of "correct" resource to develop that talent, there has been a big jump in participation numbers From u7-U10's since the introduction of the "sky try" programe with some fantastic success at certain clubs ((SL mainly) who have been targeted to develop these age groups or loose central funding.
It's not all doom and gloom, but it doesn't help when a club decides to scrap its academy and suddenly makes a plan to work with another club which in reality isn't in line with the RFL mandate.

When I did my Level 2 and my Embed the Pathway course they put a reasonable amount of emphasis on the difference between ability and maturity, and also first/fourth quartile babies which maybe helped a bit with counteracting this. There's a lot of support behind leagues being split by weight rather than age in Australia/NZ and I'd be curious to see the same over here. I remember reading a report that found those kids who were bigger at age 14-16 were less likely to make it as Super League players, presumably because they hadn't had to develop their skills as much as they were able to rely on being bigger than everyone.

Why would this temporary measure be necessary? I really can't take the idea that we are so efficient that we have absolutely exhausted the player pool seriously.

Absolutely.

But sadly not every coach does the Embed the Pathway course and fewer actually embrace the ethos of it properly, and even fewer are at clubs where they would be helped to do so, and yet fewer clubs are in league structures that help them to do so.

You're right on the stats about the young players and I know Leeds have been actively searching for quartile 4 players for this reason.

The Embed the Pathway scheme has given me a glimmer of hope because at least I know that the RFL recognise the issues. It just depends on how willing they are to confront the amateur leagues and force them to change. Right now they're sort of preaching to the converted, although that's not necessarily a bad thing to begin with.

The other side of the coin that is almost always missed by those who insist the amateur leagues are fine, is that the amateur setup has 2 purposes, not just 1. Yes they have to develop talent to push up the hierarchy, but their other equally important purpose is as a gateway to the sport for present/future supporters and sponsors. In this regard the amateur setup cannot be described as anything but a failure with only bright spots of mediocrity.

18 months ago, youth was the focus www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... ---9239057

18 months ago, youth was the focus www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... ---9239057