and what's the difference between Scholarship, and the pro club running a "regular" (in any league) junior team?

That is kinda my point too - the RFL certainly aren't going to stop clubs having junior sides affiliated to them.

To be honest, this all sounds like a crock.

It is a RFL directive that pro clubs should avoid encouraging junior ' super clubs ' at amatuer level as this is counter productive to player development

This directive is off course completely ignored by many SL clubs

W1g4n ' encourage ' quality junior players to St pats

Saints do the same to Blackbrook

We used to, think it's Thatto Heath now (might be wrong).

Not strictly what I meant though, although I acknowledge I worded it poorly.

I meant I can't see the RFL wanting to stop any pro / semi-pro club from running junior teams.

:2d2obv69 from running u 18 teams by demanding that the players ' 16/17/18 yr olds ' had to be paid minimum wage for any time spent training, playing or traveling to games , this effectively meant that to run an u 18's team you needed to spend well over 50/60 K a season , they did not however require the u 21's squad to be paid anything , or even a 1 st team player as many of them are on match payments only and basically train for free

I'm still struggling to believe this. As any detective knows, all murders have a motive. I cannot for the life of me see a motive for the RFL, or anyone else, to prevent any club, amateur or professional, from running junior teams of any sort.

If the RFL's pot of cash is shrinking. and they have to cut costs, then I can see how they might say "we're only going to fund scholarships at these clubs". But that's a long way from saying that the rest of the clubs are not allowed to run scholarships.

And in addition to a missing motive, we also have a missing weapon : the RFL has no power at all to prevent any club from running a junior side. It simply can't. If a championship, SL or amateur club decided to run a junior side, then as long as their child protection arrangements and insurance were in order, then the RFL has no ability to prevent them.

I just don't buy this until someone shows me a statement from the RFL that it is true. Someone, somewhere, is exaggerating/misrepresenting/misunderstanding what is happening, in my view.

It's difficult to have a discussion when all we've got is a second-hand report of a second-hand report, but can I ask whether the RFL has said "nobody can run scholarship, except Widnes" or "scholarships need to meet certain minimum standards (education and training, modern apprenticeships?)?" and Leigh have said "we can't afford that"? There's quite a difference.

Same as there's quite a difference between the RFL telling Leigh: "You're not allowed to have an under 18 squad" and saying "any under 18 team at a professional (not an amateur) club has to meet minimum employment law standards and pay the legal minimum wage which has just been introduced for 16-18 year olds (and which is pretty bloody low)" and Leigh deciding "we don't want to / can't afford that".

It's a difference - and what Starbug posted above is different to what he's been saying for the last couple of years

What a load of b0llocks.

Yes and no. As I understand it (and I'm open to.correction) academy players are trainees employed by the club on a part or full time basis at an age range of 16-20. Scholarship players are under 16 players not employed by the club (because they're under age) but on a scholarship, whereby they receive coaching/ training through the club. This is not the same as running a junior team

I have put a similar thing on the Leigh site but I wont be surprised if this is linked to the RFL's new player pathways for junior players.

Players on scholarship will no longer be eligible to attend Regional Camps or be part of Service area squads. The idea behind this is to spread out the quality coaching and development amongst a number of younger players rather than the same lads who are seen as the 'Elite' for their age group.

With this it would seem inevitable therefore that they would need to cut some scholarships down in order to get the number of young players ineligible to attend Regional Camps or Service Area level down.

From a Championship sides point of view the young players still receive quality coaching at regional or service area level (I suppose often in some cases from the same coaches who may have coached them at Scholarship level) and they can then be picked up by clubs at this level in an affiliation with an amateur club at possibly National Youth League level ala the setups that Barrow, Keighley and Gateshead have used. I suppose the biggest incentive for the RFL for this way of working would be that the Championship clubs are bearing no cost.

Which bit ?

Obviously finance is the most likely reason

I dont really understand the highlighted parts , can you re phrase it differently/better , probably just me being thick

The difference between "they told us we weren't allowed to have an under 18s" and " they put conditions, in line with employment law and best practice, on having an under 18s and we decided not to meet those conditions"

Sorry but you obviously wasn't paying attention 1 st time round , I spelled it out exactly the same then

The RFL refused us permission to run an u 18s team despite us already having run one for 1/2 years previously , we already had players on contracts

We asked for an explanation , so they sent Bill Appleton and Lee Crooks down to explain , but the logic was flawed even then

They quoted minimum wage and employment law , but it didn't apply to all the players in any given squad , only about 2/3 rds of them , so you had to pay some a certain amout and yet others you didn't

Also you had to pay 18's but not 21's

Lee looked embarased by it all , Bill just followed the party line , but then again that is Bill , not the sharpest knife in the draw

Anyway , pay attention next time , by the way are Cas going to have enough seats in this new stadium to pass ' framing the future ' unlike Wheldon Rd that should have never been allowed back into SL

Everybody's equal , but some are more ' Equal ' than others

Surely not allowing Scholarships would be against some Sport England rule, it would be suicide not to allow scholarships especially if Sport England caught wind.

Just as an aside Matt 3 of your u 18's are products of the Leigh Centurions Scholarship

Grant Gore , Danny Crompton and Alex Gerrard

At Saints there is Tommy Makinson who has just signed a 1st team contract aged 18 , and W1g4n have Alex Marsh who also came through the Leigh Scholarship , these players would possibly have signed for Leigh if we had been able to run an U 18's

Now to get a Franchise you need to run 1st team , reserve grade u 18's and a scholarship

So OK the RFL have minimum standards for running U 18's that we either cannot or dont want to comply with , but us running a scholarship does help to produce some players albeit for other clubs and it gives us a starting point if we intend to run an u 18's in the future , however if that is taken away it makes it twice as hard for us to find a way to run an U 18's

Sorry but it really does seem that they are deliberatley making it as difficult as possible for us or any other club to fulfill any potential future Criteria

I really cannot see how this can be seen as a positive for the sport , let alone the non SL clubs

Funny we have no replies or response to this

and it will pass unnoticed

True

i noticed it chaps,then i thought so what who gives a toss

My post was not aimed at the Widnes club , more at the ' blind faith ' once again being shown by some posters to the RFL

What I don't understand here is what are they actually stopping? The guy on CC Forum after Wire game said all clubs can run youth teams but didn't really answer the question on this properly!

I know Leigh & Halifax have been knocked back in attempts to set up academies recently but not sure on reasoning. I can kind of understand if RFL saying your plan to us doesn't constitue a full time academy set up because of X, Y & Z and therfore for say SL bids we will count you as not having one... But surely any junior set up whatsoever is a good thing?

Can only presume they have to proof they have long term plans for it... as say if for example Leigh beat Wigan to signature of a few local lads and then their academy folds year or two down the line and Wigan have filled up all spots where does that leave those lads?

Could ruin great potential careers... potentially! Sounds daft I know but only thing that makes sense?

If sides want to run junior set ups with no contracts etc that should be essential to get lads into the game but when finance comes into it this could be an issue!

I think that is the point?

to develop elite players capable of playing the game at the highest level they need to train/be coached in environments that enable such development. so the RFL have set criteria.

If a club cannot meet that criteria, then it would go against the original objective to let them just do their own thing...?

reading the thread, it sounds to me like Leigh have decided/can't meet the criteria? which, as tb points out - is very different to being told you cannot do something. As said above, they are making 'it as difficult for us (Leigh in this case), or any other club to fulfill any potential future criteria.'

If this is true then there may be a case for restraint of trade but I am erring on the side of caution in that I think it may be down to affordability.

Surely any club who can afford it can run a youth set up?