Please help me understand why the rfl have done away with the under 20 so just having the under 19 academy I cannot see the logic to it please enlighten me
I am new to the forum so please don’t jump on me if this has been discussed before I could not find it.

Hello and welcome to the forum.

The reason is cost. That was the reason put forward when the old Alliance league was abolished a few years ago also (i.e. a proper 2nd team which was open age).

As I am sure you have worked out it's probably going to end up with a lot of young players being lost to the game early (or not even considering it a viable option to even bother attempting to forge a career in the game in the first place).

Expect to see a lot of 20 year olds with potential being released from all clubs in future. An injury that sidelines a such young player for most of the season could effectively end his career. Not much chance of clubs being able be patient with players like that.

Anyway its just another symptom of the lack of money in the game - at some clubs. I believe several were opposed to the change including Wigan but the tail wags the dog again.

I think even the RFL were surprised it was voted through.

It is a poorly thought out idea, in fact I dont even think the consequences have actually been thought out.

It means players with potential such as Shae Lyon Fraser and Matty Crowe are in limbo at the moment. They are too old to play in the U19's but are not in the First team squad and are still contracted to Wigan for the season, so where are they going to get a game.

The grand idea of dual reg/loans to South Wales or Leigh probably wont happen as both have 23/24 man squads already and obviously want to develop their own players.

Wigan together with Leeds were actually 2 of the main instigators for the idea, it was Wires and Stains who were against it.

I just hope that the young lads who are lost to the game have something else to fall back on, I know Matty Crowe is training to be a Maths teacher just in case, most unfortunately have probably put all their eggs in the being a professional Rugby League player basket.

I am pretty sure that is not correct. There were discussions about this area of the game and when the final proposals came out IL was against it.

Thanks for the information DaveO.
It makes no sense whatsoever for years the RFL have been going on about developing the kids and just as it seems to be working they do this. I wish I could say its unbelievable but nothing surprises me about the decisions these idiots are making. Are they deliberately trying to kill this game? I think so as nobody can be as thick as these people.

A few times last season teams couldn't raise a team at U18s and U20s. Obviously, as shown with Salford, Bradford and Wakefield, some clubs just don't have the funds to run a club professionally. It's a cost saving exercise and depending who you believe it's either been brought in and backed by Leeds and Wigan or they're the 2 clubs who opposed it.

But it's not just the U20's players They've lost a players. It's coaches, physios, support staff etc. Then too add to that the merging of the U15's and U16's.
The most senseless ideas I've seen in Rugby League for a long long time.

Heatherington was championing the new U19's comp in one of the weekly RL papers saying it will be the most competitive ever.

It'll be a two horse race (Leeds and Wigan)

Leed and Wigan were the two clubs who pushed this proposal with the clubs seeking to cut costs gladly jumping on board (to be fair Hetherington came up with the idea but Lenihan(sp) was easily won over).

Warrington and Saints were the only clubs who opposed it.

We are in a sad state when we have to stop are youth development. As a money saving action I cannot get my head round the fact that when a lad hits 19/20 years of age if he is not super league (Wigan )quality he is lost to the club.
Have the Australians done this?
Reading about rugby league at this moment in time is so depressing. The site should have the Samaritans phone number on it.

The Aussies have sister clubs in lower leagues. for instance Newton Jets are the feeder club for South Sydney. The RFL seem to be pushing the same sort of idea. My concern is lads who are physically not mature enough at 16 and 20 will get very little game time, if any at all if they stay at their SL clubs under the current system.

I think it was a very short sighted decision.

A fixed proportion of the TV money could have been specifically allocated for EVERY pro club to have/afford a reserve side.

Trouble is the top clubs never give a thought to the others.

Sometimes you have to speculate to accumalate.

The sport has got it all wrong at the moment. All the growth plans seem to be centred around reducing costs rather than increasing revenues. You won't cut your way to success.

TBF the RFL could sign a $1B tv deal and RL fans in the UK would whinge about it.

In Australia the NRL teams all have U20's obviously but some clubs like Brisbane prefer to send promising U20's to play in the QLD Cup with their aligned clubs, so the kids get some experience from the older/hard heads. It's not perfect but it doesn't seem to be forcing kids out of the game by any means.

I have also heard that IL opposed the idea.

On a number of occasions Mr Youane has come on here and made this accusation against the club and never once has he provided one shred of evidence to back his claim up.

A legitimate link would be nice please if you could!

Just check back a few months and have a look who first correctly posted anywhere on these boards what was going to happen to Academy rugby this year. At that time those supposedly in the know were saying that the RFL were going to make Academies merge to reduce the number of teams.

Choose to believe whatever you want, at the end of the day I know I'm right.

(oh and Mike Rush also confirmed in RL Express that Saints and Warrington were the only clubs to vote against the proposals. I guess he's making it up as well).

Well done you