How do you know? What if in fact McNamara is far better in that respect than anyone else, or at least as good as anyone available? To say it "wouldn't be too hard to find" is making a statement as if it is a known fact, but it most certainly isn't.

FWIW the only direct evidence that I know of is the numerous comments I've heard and read over these past couple of years in relation to signing promising juniors and these all seemed to have referred to McNamara in the most glowing terms.

So I can't sy for sure, but I reckon maybe it would be a damn sight harder than you think.

We have had academy squads just as long as Leeds and Saints so I don't understand your point.

I think he means Leeds and Saints have been taking them seriously.

We have contary to what the club is trying to spin.

Aye. They've had more success with there's in recent years compared with us.

Whether we can match their performance in the years to come remains to be seen but if you believe all the stuff coming from the club we certainly should have something to show for it soon.

Exactly investing more effort and money over a longer time.

I read an interview with Heth****ton about when he took over the club in (i think) 96 and how they started seriously on the junior development track then. See how long that took to bear fruit.

That's rubbish. The problem here was the club wasted money on lads who were never going to be good enough.

Edited.

We always have matched their performance in junior development.

So you're saying they put the money in but didn't get quality resources in either scouting (poor quality recruitment) and/or coaching (insufficient resources) for that investment?

There are a number of clubs who have produced a long line of local talent - they tend to be towns where RL is king - Cas, Fev, Wigan, Hull. I'm not sure that is naturally the case at Leeds & Saints, they have had to work at it. Certainly when they were struggling in the 80s & 90s there was nowhere near the home grown talent there is now. I'm not sure Bradford made the most of their success since SL, it will definitley be more difficult attracting talent when there are currently more successful clubs within 15 miles.

It was a scouting problem.

Prior to SL we didn't. We did 96-2003 but after that we haven't.

It did take long but once the players became first teamers the rise was rapid. They weren't really week in week out regulars until 2003 and by 2004 they were champions.

With the crop you are trying to bring through, you'll know pretty quick if they're good enough.

Was it only a scouting problem. I had the feeling that under Nobby he went and bought his team whilst the juniors were trained up and then let go. I'm sure that people will point to the one or two that made it through the ranks at Bradford but it would be interesting to see how many Leeds and Saints had promoted over a similar period. It always seemed that any succesful juniors we had were despite the system not because of it.

That's been as good as said by the club, both at the Fans' Forum and in individual conversations. I think its safe to say now that I was told by a then-Community Development Manager that Nobby would not let the players go round the schools or do other community development (i.e. the players of the future) work, and that Macca was precisely the opposite.

I understand that Millwart identified a similar youth/academy development problem at Stains around 2001, and promptly took the sort of steps the current Bulls administration took from 2005. That gives them four years start on us, so its maybe not surprising that they (and Leeds) are much further down the track than us?

But at least we ARE on the track, and a way down it now. It would seem that under the previous regime - if all we are given to understand is correct - we would probably still be in the tramshed.

Yes scouting was a major problem. The club waisted some serious money and time on lads who were never going to make it. It's no surprise that the head scout was one of the first to be replaced.

Nobles biggest problem was not playing the good juniors we had players like Nicky Saxton, Paul Clarke, Ross Greenwood and Richard Dobson got so issued off the left the game all together.

Rubbish.

Care to expand on that? Given that I did say "if all we are given to understand is correct", which invited intelligent comment and rebuttal of what now seems to be the club party line from anyone who is qualified to do so.

I thought better of you than that

Forget pre Super League, that's not what I meant.

I must have imagined Matt Cook, Sam Burgess, David Halley, Craig Kopczak, Ryan Atkins, Brett Ferres, Karl Pryce, Andy Smith, Chris Bridge, Aaron Smith, Matt James, Jason Crookes, Richard Johnson, Rich Hawkyard, Keal Carlisle, James Donaldson, Elliot Whithead, Tom Olbison all developing and progressing to play for Bulls super leage team post 2003 then.

Thats 18 super league players and a couple of ex and and there is probably more than that, that have been developed after 2003 by the Bulls, that record is as good as any club in Super League.

I do apologise for the rubbish statement but it's the only way i feel it could get my feelings across.


IMO the club is trying to shift the focus away from Mac's short comings on to Noble and Caisley which IMO is out of order. Granted they might have had some flaws to be on the end of the tirade of abuse they are receiving is poor for two people who served the club so well.

OK understood, thanks.

What was your take on the youth development under the previous regime? There IS, in fairness, a fair bit of anecdotal evidence in support of the club's current line? And that comment from the Community Development team I referred to was made in a context where there was no reason whatsoever for an untruth to be told (you'll have to trust me on that one).

Seemed to me that we started SL well in terms of youth development - Fielden, Deacon (OK, ex Oldham) and Pryce obviously standing out - then we seemed to falter quite badly. Or maybe, more to the point, we produced quite a few but few stayed especially in the later years. What do you attribute that to? (Serious question, as always).

And yes, its easy to blame all that's wrong on the previous regime - hell, we'd had a government been doing just that for the last 12 years - especially when they are not well-placed to defend themselves. And anyone who belittles or sneers at what Caisley did for the club over most of his tenure deserves the kind of response you just came up with. But equally, that regime DID ultimately bring the club to the brink of falling over financially as well as landing us with the court action which did untold damage - both of which were pretty fundamental disasters which the next regime had to fix.

Trying to sift the truth from the spin is always hard, and its probably a truism I'll borrow from politics that all Chairmens' careers end in failure. The more facts, or informed judgment, people can put in the public domain, the more chance there is of people reaching the right conclusion and seeing through any spin - from whatever camp it comes. Wouldn't you agree?

I made the point in another thread the development was there. It's main problem was in the fact we tried to develop the wrong lads or when the got to the level of where they needed to be tested at the highest possible level they weren't given that chance. I've said before that lads were ed of big style and rightly so one lad Paul Clarke is one of the best young full backs I've ever seen. If had been given a go we wouldn't have the fullback problems we have now.

That all makes a lot of sense and fits in tbh, when you look back. But (yes, call me "Mr But" if you want!) wasn't that a big failure on the part of the coaching and management set-up? The point maybe people are making, even if they are not quite getting the precise nature of the problem right?

Could not agree more.

Also, as McNamara was part of this last regime he would have been aware of the situation when he took the job in the first instance.