media.therfl.co.uk/docs/Academy% ... 202014.pdf Warrington again achieved 'good' status. The attached document is well worth a read.

media.therfl.co.uk/docs/Academy% ... 202014.pdf Warrington again achieved 'good' status. The attached document is well worth a read.

Coincidentally, I was studying the same report when you posted Mr Ganson. Looking at the detail, we scored highly in the categories but only got a 2 for 'achievements of our system'. I think the reason we were marked down was because we have not (as yet) provided any players for England or England Knights - unless somebody else has a different interpretation ?

One of the most interesting results was for Leeds; they seemed to have been given a real hammering in the assessment. I know they lost a couple of good academy players to Oz in the close season, so I wonder if the younger players feel that they have limited opportunities to get into the first team ? That is pure speculation btw.

That was my interpretation, can't argue with that really. For me the challenge is to start bringing more Warrington born players through.

I have heard a few complaints of that nature from Leeds, although I suppose that is not an issue unique to any one club. I'm sure there are a few young lads asking themselves how Asotasi can be earning double their salary.

Well I suppose the club has increased its scores over 2013, and it looks as though they are around 3rd in the ranking of the academies, which is a good achievement. And we have certainly seen a lot of debuts over the last two years - I count around 9 academy players in total - that is a pretty healthy situation.

I think the assessment is pretty much accurate, we all expected Saints & Wigan to be top of the list but we seem to be finally catching up in this department.

The Leeds scores are bizarre from the high ranking last season!

Quite impressed and suprised by Widnes score, equal to ourselves. They at least seem to be on the right track.

Agree about Widnes, surprised.

We'll be all 1's next year with all the youth who have places in our squad now. As long as no major changes happen we'll be alright for a few good years.

The report doesn't have an assessment date on, just stating 2014. So if this was completed in pre season, before the debuts of Ormsby, Philbin, King x 2 etc and before O'Brien, the Evans' and Laithwaite held regular first team spots, you could understand on the lack of production. The more time that these guys play, the higher we will grade, and there are a lot more in the under 19's and under 16's demonstrating enough quality to become first team members.

It has been done in the past couple of weeks

Their overall score was reduced by the fact that have coaches who are not level 3 qualified. I'm not sure how that affects the 'achievements of our academy' category, but it mentions that the lack of qualifications is the main reason for the lower scores.

It's good to see our local clubs all doing well. Saints and Wigan have been ahead in this regards for years now, hence the year on year stories of highly rated academy players moving to Saints or Wigan from Wire or Widnes. But it seems now that both Wire and Widnes are closing the gap, which can only be a good thing for the sport.

It's definitely time to look at increasing the benefits of having a strong academy on the salary cap. Taking it to the extreme, if one academy produced 17 world class players, it should be able to keep them all provided it can sustainably afford them. We've got a situation now where the academies at Saints, Wigan and Leeds (To this point despite their low scores on this round) are too strong and they aren't able to keep as many as they would like. I'd suggest possibly massively reducing the cap (£0.75m?) and excluding academy products, but also having an overall cap linked to financial status to prevent clubs overspending.

Putting B-teams in the lower leagues could be a solution or professional clubs being allowed to adopt an amateur side.

Excellent for us, only behind Stains, Pies and Leeds (not really a surprise)

Is there a cap on how much can be invested in club academies? You'd have thought given that Koucash wants to turn Salford into a major player in SL that he would've put some effort into their academy, looks like they've gone backwards according to this.

From what I understand there is a lot of discussion atm on the youth system for next year. Very briefly though, only 8 (max) SL Academies will be allowed next year, they will need to be accredited, and will be given 3 year licences. The Academies will be allowed up to 30 players within the U19 age group. Players will have to be given contracts and paid a minimum wage ( I think it was in the region of £2k in 2013). I have not heard if there is to be a maximum salary bill for the age group though, e.g. if a club want's to pay extra to attract a very promising youngster.

Warrington are now in front of Leeds and considering we scored 'one' on most aspects I am a bit surprised we are marked down as an overall 'two'.

You would suspect a perfect score will be acheived in 2015.

There is already a minimum wage in place of £3k.

The overall score given is whatever your lowest mark is hence the reason Leeds are an overall 3

Aha I thought it was an average.

I suppose it means you have to be perfect to score a one which is fair enough.

duplicate post!!!!

Over the last five years Warrington have easily been the most consistent performers at senior academy level.



Interesting this is the view now being taken by St Helens. I guess an extra over payment outside the cap was a good idea when it went to Keiran Cunningham to stop him from going to rugby union but not now other clubs are better placed to spend the additional sums.

You are certainly getting there, the results of the sides isn't the issue here, as I'm sure you are aware.



Not sure what you are getting at here? Cunningham, a product of Saints's academy, would be free under my suggestion as well. I'm all for spending more, as Saints are, but just feel that should be on home grown players rather than players from the NRL like Marwan would prefer.

What about the possibility of increasing the Cap depending on the number of home grown players in your squad? I suspect that Doc Koukash will be looking for a quick fix by signing up as many top juniors as he can, bringing in some coaches and expecting to be rated top academy in the competition. Money may be a big influence, but it doesn't get you everything.

I think I would agree with the point about koukash. With few local schools and clubs playing RL I am sure he will try and buy up promising kids from outside his area. That is ok up to a point, I only hope he is also using his cash to encourage more schools to get into RL and so improve the talent on his doorstep. And I agree there should be some form of financial inducement to bringing local lads through to the first team as well because in effect, any club doing this is also strengthening the total talent pool for RL - something we desperately need to encourage.

One final thought, taking off my Wire tinted glasses, I think Leeds scoring as low as they did on the accreditation is a total nonsense. Not only does it undermine the value of the whole exercise, it makes the RFL look out of touch. Leeds have had a very successful academy for many years and have brought players through to SL and England standard. For the RFL to score them so low is a bit like 'telling your grandmother how to suck eggs'.

Agreed, especially your last paragraph.

And the agreed statement clearly explains why they scored the way they did, with some coaches not having the needed qualifications, along with murmurs (not that I believe them much) that some of the young players think the path to first team is blocked by favouritism - I'd imagine there was more than a dart board involved in the scoring - and wouldn't surprise me if it's nothing more than timing - I'd put decent money on Leeds scoring an "outstanding" again next year.

Limiting home grown players cap value (with lower limits for knights and full international honours) should be the way forward, and was proposed in the same publication as the "marquee signing exemption" rule - one has been pushed aside for the shiny rule ...

Yes, I am aware that the probable reason for the low score was the coaching qualification. My issue is with the scoring and the impact on the final accreditation rating. You could for instance get three England players through your academy in one year and receive e.g. 5 points, but only score e.g. 1 point because your coaches were not certificated. The final outcome is that the club are doing fantastically well at producing the goods, but are rated abysmally. That simply undermines the value of the assessment in the first place - and makes the RFL look rather silly.