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?

It could simply be that they don't want clubs to have a scholarship unless they run an U18's team for them to progress towards.
I think the RFL's stance that 16-18 year olds must be paid is fair and reasonable but I know it has knocked back several championship clubs. However most of those lads will stay with their clubs, similarly scholarship players don't get many games....most of their rugby is played for their clubs.

Anyone can run a youth setup. We do even. But if you want to call it an RFL accredited scholarship programme, then it has to meet particular standards.

Makes sense, and is what I guess this is!

I agree totally Richie but if other Championship clubs produce exceptional young players, what will happen to them? Where will they be allowed to play? Will they be deemed to be good enough if the are not 'accredited' even if they obviously are.

Seems like another step towards feeder clubs to me.

Restraint dressed up as I don't know what!?

Suppose they'll go to NYL amateur clubs or regional amateur clubs. Many of which are likely to have better standards of support and coaching than a scheme attached to a pro club that can't get RFL accreditation.

They are already with amatuer clubs , I am led to believe the so called RFL accreditation is decided by the number of your players that make regional camp , usually the coaches that decide who makes regional camp are from SL clubs , they are obviously going to pick the players from SL scholarships

Just as Championship clubs are at alower level of the sport the scholarships at non SL clubs will be of a lower level , but that doesn,t mean that these players could not develop into future pro/semi pro players

It would seem to me to be that the SL clubs want to have more players on their scholarships than they have previously been officially allowed , and this is a way of doing it

A by product of this is that it makes it even harder for any Championship club to pass future SL application criteria

Our lads on Harlequins and Sheffield Eagles scholarships played fixtures for both of those teams, as well as playing for us.

Teams moaning about this could of got academy sorted before leaving it til last min for SL app?



Not running one to save pennies and then throwing one together last min may not be the best way to encourage youth... if don't get in SL, scrapped a season later?

This is about scholarships , not academies , as I pointed out earlier , the Widnes academy has benifited from the Leigh scholarship , what exactly is wrong with that , surely we all want as many junior players getting as much coaching as posibble at as high alevel as they can

btw, has this question




been answered yet

The RFL guy said all clubs can run junior sides if they want so what exactly is being blocked? Did Millward expand? I agree if sides want to do anything should be but what are they stopping?