[url=http://www.loverugbyleague.com/news_23884-salford-scrap-under-19s.html?utm_medium=twitterRead here[/url

Extremely disappointing if true.

Sounds about right. Marwan has, and never will have any intentions of building solid foundations at Salford. He wants instant success and will continue to throw the cheque book at whoever he can to achieve this, even though it is obviously not going to happen. The kids would never realistically have a chance at breaking through in this scenario anyway so may as well be scrapped till Marwan pulls the plug.

How much does it cost to run an U19s team? I'm sure I've seen the number on here before but can't recall it. Is it around £100k? If so, surely "billionaire" Marwan can fork that out?

Leigh don't run one do they, and Hull share theirs with KR. That's not good is it, for the top level.

Didn't Koukash say he was going to be cutting costs because he's no longer going to bankroll the club and wants them to live within their means? Obviously an academy side was seen as something that they could afford to cut. Personally I think it should be mandatory for all Super League sides to run an academy and a reserve side. They are particularly important for our game. Not that Salford's academy set up was particularly good according to the RFL's reviews.

I think most clubs would have chosen to spend less on their squad and continue to run an academy but obviously that's not the way that Koukash wants to do things. Surely it will make it very hard for them to create any real kind of squad depth without an academy though. Perhaps he thinks the best path for the club to take is to rely on signing players rather than developing them.

I'm sure I've seen Michael Carter (Wakey Chairman) say that SL clubs receive £100k of central funding to run an academy which must be matched by the club

Just so disappointing if true. Think it will be the beginning of the end for Salford sadly. Scrapping the academy says to me he isn't in it for the long term.

The RFL won't do anything. They will just bury their heads in the sand and say "carry-on" For once can't they actually govern the sport! How this isn't a requirement to play in SL is beyond me.

I agree with Wilzay, Salford scrapping theirs, Hull clubs merging theirs and Leigh currently without one (although Leigh get benefit of the doubt as it is their first year in SL). that's only 9 English academies being run in the top tier (who get more moeny than eveyr before) The sport is going backwards. Glad we are continuing to fund ours. We'll be rewarded in the long term.

if dr bullshi7 managed to market and promote the club properly then he wouldnt have to cut the u19s.

regarding the hull academy, this was pushed by the RFL not just both clubs

That doesn't make it right though.

It should be a stipulation of membership that all S.L. clubs run an academy.

i agree, no hull fan or kr fans wanted this but when the governing body is giving its full backing and encouraging it, its hardly a rule they are going to put in place


and just to add, fc do have a reserve/u23s team

My comment wasn't a swipe at the Hull clubs, or Salford for that matter, the governing body are entirely to blame.

Fully agree

This ^

I agree.

Leigh shouldn't get benefit of the doubt, nor should any top flight club get let off with not running an academy.

You should have your salary cap reduced if you don't run an academy team and are in SL. That would stop clubs adopting a short term approach and using the saving to spend on the first team potentially giving some of the lesser teams an advantage over other lesser teams.

Wakey don't spend to the cap but run an Academy. The shortfall in funding that the club has to make up could be used on improving the first team but it would rightly be wrong for us to contemplate doing so.

All clubs should be required to run an academy and A team IMO. How do Salford plan to get the minimum number of club trained players required in their squad in a few years time?

I don't support this move whatsoever, but from a business point of view you can understand it.

Would you rather spend the money on developing players/employing more staff/needing bigger or more facilities. Or would you rather pick up the players that Wigan, Warrington, St Helens and Leeds cannot afford to keep. We have a salary cap that encourages this sort of behaviour.

You could play this team without having any out lay, just picking up the players teams couldn't afford to keep.

1. Matty Russell
2. Stef Marsh
3. Iain Thornley
4. Jake Connor
5. Tom Lineham
6. Ryan Hampshire
7. Gareth O'Brien
8. Lee Mossop
9. Brad Dwyer
10. Dom Crosby
11. Jack Hughes
12. Greg Burke
13. Logan Tomkins

A lot of that team moved on because the team play played for either needed to free up money on the SC or couldn't pay them as much as someone else could. Very few moved for footballing reasons.

So as a business decision, why the hell would you invest in an academy, when you can get these sorts of players because their parent team cannot afford to keep them. The model we have is stupid.

Rules should be in place that prohibit such a negative approach.

You did, in reply to a post I made about the Salary Cap, where he laid down everything we get from Sky.

I thought that was it, having looked again, he said similar on Twitter recently too. He did say that Wakey's academy is run on a shoestring but if it can produce players like Johnstone then it must have up a bloody good pair of shoes!!

"B*****x
The clubs run the RFL so which cheapskates are to blame?
Overseas crock on a 4 year contract anyone?

Not really sure why anyone would follow a sport that makes you so unhappy.
Try kabaddi! Thats mental!!

can you define 'footballing reasons' for me?