I'd make it more simple than that on review. I would say 'without the consent of the coach'. Maybe Lineham & Connor didn't move with the consent of the coach, the rest the coach was happy to let go. Dwyer falls into both sides of this argument, as I assume when he was let go first time, the coach was happy, but I assume this time the coach would like to keep him.
I always find it stupid that a coach is having to make decisions based on finance when his team has no financial issues. Thats whats happening with most of these players. Prime example was Crosby, in which the statement read something along the lines of 'we wanted to keep him, warrington will pay him more, Bretherton and Navarette is a more cost effective solution than paying Crosby what he deserves'.

Isn't the additional £100k funding per club is earmarked for the clubs' Foundations for work in the community, rather than for an academy?

I'm relatively at ease with the Hull situation. Within a relatively smallish area it makes some sense to pool resources. The big issue would obviously come with deciding which team the players go to that make it through the system.

The Salford situation is a crime really. We can all make noises about how football comes first in this area but with that attitude the situation will never be improved.

thats the dilema! atm fc have a group of players ring fenced in the CoH academy, but in a couple of years it will be like a draft pick apparently, so if kr dont come back up straight away it could get interesting!

At the same time what's the point of Wigan and Leeds stockpiling 50 players ??? You have to let them go sooner or later.

It seems they get £100k for both.In the words of our Chairman

Isn't it a good job the same three clubs produce youth year on year so the rest of the sport doesn't have to.

We have finished top 5 the last 3 years and have been to a major final with a squad full of home grown players, difference is sky don't bang on about it every time we are on tv so ignorant doylems like yourself can live in a bubble and dismiss all but 3 clubs. Without youth development we have no club.

Oh dear! Maybe look down from those lofty heights every now and again pal

I do agree with this. Don't get me wrong, Wigan Saints and Leeds are brilliant at developing juniors. But sometimes if you listen to the media in general (not just sky) then you'd think ONLY those clubs bother developing juniors. A quarter of the England squad are from our own academy but we never get a mention in terms of junior development when we're one of the best now IMO

As with Cas we would be utterly screwed without junior development. 11 of our 28 players currently signed up are from our academy. We've some of the most exciting juniors in the game in the 19s which gives me hope for A return to SL one day. We aren't making it without them!

Those three clubs sign up 90 % of the best juniors , not surprising they produce 90% of the players

Now not sure if it's still the case but the RFL used to set limits on the numbers any particular club could sign ( to help spread the talent around and make the junior club competitions more competitive ) , but some clubs flaunted these rules

This might explain Salfords decision

And when you were ' one of the best ' you signed the best juniors , will you still be producing similar quality and numbers if you're still in the Championship in 7/8 years ?

Wigan,Leeds and Saints stockpile the best juniors , other clubs have to put squads together with players they know will never make it , not surprising they produce less quality and numbers

10 years a go we probably didn't concentrate on the juniors. One good thing McNamara did while coach of us was a shift in effort on signing junior players.

We're in our third year in the championship, have £250k central funding and have just signed 14 players from our scholarship. Some of the best juniors in the game have signed on with us (remember The name Cameron Scott) The staff have worked extensively hard to sign them up. If we can do it, there's no reason why Salford can't.

You say Wigan Leeds etc stockpile players. I think you're doing a disservice to those clubs. They work damn hard and provide investment in their junior department for those junior players. If they are stock piling the juniors, then it's because other clubs aren't working hard enough on their junior development programs.

Do Wigan and Leeds deserve the right to see if a player they have brought through since being a teenager can fully mature under their tutelage?

The SC restrictions, along with the amateurish way the youth structure has been messed around means that often the clubs that put in all the work get little to no benefit from the work they put in. I am sure there are players on that list, and beyond, that were let go due to SC restrictions, who the coach would have liked to have around for a couple more years to see what they become.

But hey, that goes along with the general ethos of our sport.

Some clubs would probably be more succesful scrapping their academies and then throwing big bucks at these talented kids when they reach a certain age or before they commit to a longer contract.

Explain exactly how you want them to ' work harder ' ?

From the changes I've seen at Bradford. Invest in the youth setups. Coaching, facilties, kit etc

Working more with community clubs. Not just sending a scout there. Engage with them. This has been one of the biggest changes at Bradford in that we work much more closely with the local amateur and junior teams. Also work harder in the local schools.

Create a culture and a pathway in the club from U16s, 19s to the first team.

You can do ALL of that , but if Wigan offer a kid from Eccles a scholarship , he'll be at Orrell for training , it is that simple

And what ' investment ' do you mean ? , money ?

'Engage ' , what exactly does that mean ?

Exactly how do you ' Work harder ' in a School ?

Explain ' Create a culture and a pathway ' ?

All nice clever sounding words usually used by people trying to sound intellectual , but actually just ' BULL '

A return to P+R and clubs are over-spending, bringing in more overseas players, and giving up on youth development. Surely nobody could have foreseen this.



Oh.....

Why is that? What natural advantage do Wigan have? There is absolutely no reason to suggest that this is true, if everyone put the same work into the youth categories as Wigan.

Ceteris paribus the youth will pick based on proximity to home.

By definition you are pointing out that there is something extra you can do to make the young players join your club.

Unlike that time when we had licensing and we dissolved much of the youth leagues...

when all clubs had academies, the number of overseas players went down and the number of british players went up?

Reputation , for being essentially the biggest but certainly the most famous RL club in the country if not the World

So all things will not be equal

I've seen it so many times , the tap room snobbery of a Dad , bragging to all and sundry that his lad was at Wigan Scholarship , despite the fact there were 20odd others within his age group and Wigan were only supposed to have 10

I wouldn't call "investment" and "working harder" clever sounding words.

Bradford have done all the above in the last few years and are seeing the benefits slowly but surely. Like I said, we're in our third year in the championship, have £250k central funding but have some of the most exciting juniors in the game. If we can do that and fight off Warrington, Leeds Huddersfield etc for these lads signatures, then other why can't other clubs like you suggest?

Again , explain how you ' Work harder ' in schools to improve junior players to sign for your Scholarship than somebody else's ?

You are reaping the benefits of your success 10-12-15 years ago , remain where you are for another ten and you'll probably abolish your academy , you just won't be getting the raw material to work with

This is Salfords position now