I have been told that championship teams academies are moving the age group from under 20's to under 23's. IMO this is a great move as it allows players that are late bloomers such as 'chris hill' to sign pro still. He is just one of the many examples of players who are world class and have been found from lower league rugby at a later age. Also alex walmsley, signed very late by batley and then went to saints and became an impressive player. However super league are still operating at 19's and many are released and gone like that. I know a few this year who have been released by bulls who are quality players -some opting to never play again and some to championship where hopefully they will make i as pro. but many it seems - if you are released from 19s then that is it. Championship are doing it right and allowing players to fulfill their potential as well as being able to sign a new young era on with more talented players. I was told by an academy player that a lot of these championship academies will become stronger than a lot of super league ones as a result of this.

Super league need to raise the age limit they have for academies or risk losing quality players. Not just for the clubs themselves but for the international game. We need to keep developing players and not just stop. Also the more youth we can promote the more chance we have of producing world class players.Also the grassroots levels between competing rugby league clubs in england and amateur need to be stronger and they just arent. Not enough scouts there and this is something which australia does well as they do this.

How many top players arent even championship players never mind SL players by 23?

I dont think we are losing all that many players who are going to go on to have successful careers who arent first team championship players at 21/22/23.

The whole academy structure should be scrapped. Young players are the game's most valuable resource, outside of maybe 3 examples clubs have proved they can't be trusted with it.

U23's is a recipe to bring back the old A Team. However, I think U19 is too young to have to make a decision on many players. U21 might be a better compromise.

A slightly older age group would also mean players including 18/19 year olds getting to play against more hardened opposition. I'm not at all convinced that playing at U19 is that good a preparation for first team for a lot of players.

I never understood why we don't have a similar setup to football. An U16, anU19 and a reserve team.
We've precious few players in the talent pool in this country, the clubs and RFL should be doing everything they can to retain and encourage the development of those we do have

you have answered your own question. We dont have an U16, U19, and reserve team because we have precious few players in our talent pool.

We dont have enough players of sufficient quality to implement an additional league. If we did it would be of poor quality and if anything stifle development.

Because most of the clubs can't afford it. That is the real reason.

Short-termism and self interest from many top level clubs, who would rather spend £300k on a marquee player exemption than invest in youth development.

If clubs cant afford to / don't want to run a proper academy setup the responsibility should be taken from them and run centrally, and punative salary cap reductions put in place. Clubs that do develop players from their own academies should get salary cap exemptions for those players.

Because most of the clubs can't afford it. That is the real reason.

If you scrap the academy system, what would you have in it's place ?

Centralised / regional academies. Rather than having Wakefield, Castleford and Featherstone scrapping over young lads from their area and putting them through a mediocre academy, have a single regional "super academy" that brings in players from across the area, and all the clubs in SL have access to the players produced (a draft). Clubs that can demonstrate their ability to run their own academy get to do so.

Build in a scale to the salary cap whereby home academy produced players don't count, other players count at 1.5x actual salary, overseas players at 2x actual salary

In fairness, it's not really the top clubs that are spending silly amounts on marquee players at the expense of youth development. A look at the current Wigan, St Helens and Leeds teams shows plenty of academy grads and successful academy teams behind them. I'd argue that you could only really through that accusation at possibly Warrington in the current top six.

It's actually when you start going down the table - to the likes of Salford, Bradford and the Hull clubs - that you see the sort of activity you describe.

Bradford got one of the best academies going. We've just not been able to keep hold of them that's the problem due to gross mis managemet at the top.

But how do you deem who can run a successful academy if it is centrally done? I'm not close table with a draft, players going to teams they may not want to go to.

For me keep it how it is, but have more rewards for those that put the effort to produce young talent , and penalties for those that don't.

improvement of amateur RL first, amateur 'hubs' for the best youngsters, moving through centralised regional academies to Championship/C1 level. Draft to SL clubs.

Wont work in a P+R league though so we will see youth development fall down the pecking order again.

the RFL recently published its report and gradings on Academy's, so they already have in place the criteria on what makes a good and successful Academy, and what you need to produce good young players.

If a club wants to run their own system they have to have in place each of the criteria before they start, be it X number of Level 3 qualified coaches, facilities of a certain standard, £xxx investment per year, etc....

If a club doesn't meet those criteria then they are not allowed to run their own Academy, and players from those areas get mopped up into the regional centres.



I don't think that you can do that. Why should young players in a particular catchment area suffer because their local big club runs a terrible Academy? How many players have slipped through the net at various points in their development because the Academy they are in cant develop them properly. The RFL has a responsibility to those players and to the game to ensure they are developing properly.

I know a lot about how bulls are operating at the minute and they have just let the majority of the squad go, there will only be 2 of that 24 man squad who get near making it to 1st grade. Homegrown players from bradford area who are quality players are getting ditched and they will come back to bite us i am sure, they are either ditching rugby then or going to another club. Now the bulls are just getting fresh batches of players in every year and most are from leeds or rochdale. Bulls need to retain more youth like wigan, we just let everyone go

It’s difficult to compare like with like as some clubs will benefit from having a large RL hinterland and others won’t. Some clubs will have more money or have a recent proven track record of success at first team level. Some might have great facilities or well developed player development schemes.

Not all are alike so you can’t simply say one is failing and another isn’t without an assessment that looks at all aspects. I think the recent RFL survey attempted to do that.

No sense in penalising a club that gets only a couple of players to first grade if they’ve had to work far harder than a club that has got 3 in without making any effort.

Regional Academies do exist now with Midlands, South Wales, North East and Midlands. However there may be merit in extending this outside the sides that are readily investing in player development.

Reduce the quota allowances and clubs will have no choice

That assumes that all clubs with large numbers of foreigners aren’t bothering with developing their own players.

That’s not always the case.

Take us. We’ve got a good academy. We produce lots of players – we just can’t hang onto them. If we could we’d still have the likes of the Burgesses, Wardle, Atkins, Kopczak, Peacock, Pryce, Bateman, Whitehead playing for us.

Don't have to assume anything, reduce the quota and then they will have to develop their own. The drawback for them is they may get relegated if they don't. If I remember rightly the quota was being reduced until the SL clubs voted to change the academy system from 2 teams to 1 in order to save money. False economy IMO.

2011

At least 8 home grown players.

No more than 5 quota players.

No more than 5 overseas trained players inc quota players.

Rest of squad to be from players trained within same federation.


So how come the quota appears to have increased since 2011 when it was reducing year on year up to 2011

U16, U19 & U23 (with 3 overage allowed) and get rid of the stupid dual reg thing is the way forward so well done to the championship clubs IMO.

A bit cruel on Salford when you consider that in the lead up to Marwan taking over the club, the entire club from top to bottom had already started to disband, with many 1st team players and younger ones already having either been sold off in previous months or told to find alternative clubs as the future was looking like certain oblivion...

By the time Marwan concluded the deal, Salford had missed the chance to enter academy for SL fixtures, so academy side was up against lesser opposition last term and even though our set up was slated by RFL, walked the competition and subsequent grand final..

As for going out and spending loads on players...what else were we to do from what was inherited by Marwan ffs

ABSOLUTELY SPOT ON.

Problem is with clubs like Leeds.

They are happy to use and abuse Hunslet as, effectively, their 'A' team. Hence Barry Eaton, wearing his Leeds Rhinos shirt, sitting next to Brian McDermott at Leeds' matches.

Use and abuse?
If it weren't for Leeds then Hunslet would've gone out of existence. Barry Eaton is paid by Leeds for his services and Hunslet benefit hugely from their relationship with Leeds including use of training facilities, use of Leeds backroom staff, and of course use of some of Leeds players.

How is improving another club bad for the game? It's better for Hunslet and it's better for Leeds players as they're playing at a much higher standard than an u23's or any other defined age group.