It’s the same in football, only on a much bigger scale.
The obvious point to make about all this is that, even if everyone of the players came through to the highest level. Professional RL is not a big enough sport to give them all a career. So it makes sense to limit the number you take on and ergo, the number of academies you have.

Quote ="Dave K."Was at Cas from 15 to 17. https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/8536725/ ... all-corsa/ Wasnt easy to find.'" corrected

Quote ="Dave K."Was at Cas from 15 to 17. https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/8536725/ ... all-corsa/ Wasnt easy to find.'" corrected

With all due respect, you don't appear to know what you are talking about.

There are people on these boards who will know the figures better than me but I do know that participation us up in our region. Up by 40% rings a bell. Certainly I've never known a time when we have only had 4 under 14s sides.

When players join Academies they either stay in full time education to work towards a qualification that allows them to go to university or they undertake an apprenticeship. They don't just train a few times a week and spend the rest of their time on their X box.

Wow that comment is exactly right on the money, Hull is not a hot bed for rugby, both K.R and F.C.
In the last 10 years the teams have produced 10 players that have made it in the game

[list=

[/list

That in stone is fine , however he did come to Rovers as a fresh faces teen who NEVER played a game for Cas academy.


Watts learnt his trade at Rovers so he really is a Rovers home grown as was Tom Briscoe with ylou

Ben Crooks, born in Pontefract yet FC academy trained

We could go round all day on this subject

Watts had made his first team debut for Cas before he joined Rovers. He was only 17 though and then played a year in our Academy in 2008.

:1sxwwc2w

TLDR summary) to be changed. The RFL, I would guess, will now be pretty passive in letting the Sport Resolutions appeals play out, making changes likely, imo. It won’t necessarily be to Rovers’ benefit, but between them the most disappointed clubs have a lot to go at.

I was going to call Rimmer’s arguments specious but I just checked the definition and I don’t think they are even superficially plausible. The 3-year process reflects understandable delays relating to the pandemic rather than the panel having read the submissions cover to cover (Castleford’s was apparently 2000 pages... wtf? No wonder the panel was unsympathetic to them). The ‘haven’t beaten Australia in a series in ages’ argument (Brian Carney has at least beaten them in a game, which itself now feels a bit like being reminded that Aberdeen once upon a time beat Real Madrid in a major European football final), and we have to do things differently is nonsense. We don’t beat Australia for the very broadly the same reasons English football managers haven’t won the English league for nearly 30 years - the last two that did were both called Howard, for goodness sake and only Tottenham caretaker Ryan Mason finished in the top half of the PL this year - it is numbers and culture.

Side note: going back a bit further, Englishman Bob Paisley must be among the most underrated managers in sports history.
Side note to side note: I recommend the Bob Emergency sports documentary by Jon Bois.

Back on the academy decision. This isn’t, and in fairness was never intended to be, about reform. It is exactly the same system, but with slightly fewer/different participants. The leap from this to materially improving our chances against Australia, even as one small piece of the jigsaw, is ludicrous. Rimmer can’t say it, but if it is about saving money (which is in very short supply) or increasing participation in the Southeast and Northeast that at least makes some sort of sense.

What has been interesting has been the suggestions about real reform that have emerged through the furore. Terry O’Connor fell into the Jamie Peacock trap of extrapolating from his personal experience, but I agree with him about scholarships so I’ll forgive that - and I know it resonates with normal people.



For me, the whole system is way too SL club-centric with a strange sense of ownership and competition. I mean, the proposal of a draft for graduates of the COHA - that didn’t seem weird to people? Or some of the reaction when somebody like George Lawler chooses to seek professional opportunities elsewhere, or the hype around Harry Tyson-Wilson, Reece Dean, Callum Lancaster, Jack Logan et al. before they’d really reached adulthood (for balance, I recall seeing Steven Holker compared to one of Rovers’ all-time greats after a couple of games off the bench and Rovers were bigging up the youngsters in their system in the HDM ahead of this decision), or the quietness about the progress of Jez Litten and Joe Cator that I’m now anticipating in light of the panel’s scoring methods?

Wouldn't surprise me if 2 appealing clubs were successful. To all intents and purposes preserving the status quo which is so productive.

Me either.

To be fair, I don’t think this was really about changing the status quo beyond giving London and Newcastle a bit more resource, which isn’t a terrible idea in theory. I think Rimmer was just flailing about for something to say and ‘change can be good... let’s beat Australia!’ was was came out. This is why torture shouldn’t be used in interrogation - people will say anything to make it stop.

The tensions around the governance structure of the sport remain problematic and that isn’t solely the RFL’s fault, imo. For somebody like Rimmer, or Elstone in his SL role, the pay is decent enough but you’re expected to do a lot with very little power and a gaggle of club owners squabbling in the background.

Common sense prevails. Great news for rugby league, particularly grass roots, in this city.

The almost universal support from Hull FC fans for Rovers cause has been heartening. You aren't a bad lot really.

Don't get me wrong, I think the news makes all the sense in the world, but wasn't the underlining decision based on "trawling for fish", when, inevitably, in some areas, stocks would simply dry up?

Participation is up in our City. We have some of the best Community clubs in the country, they do an outstanding job. It's up to Hull, Rovers, Hull & District and the RFL to work with them, offer resource and keep driving numbers up.

It's a challenge but more than possible.

for me the RFL are just totally flawed it is one bad decision after another at least its turned out OK in the end and its sorted for the good of the game but after so much pressure we again air our dirty washing in public and look like a real amateurish organisation. Thankfully at last sense prevailed. But, It should never have come to this.After such a climb down against so many arguments that made eminent sense, its about time that changes were made. In any commercial organisation with such a stance from the Chief Executive for what was a cockamamie idea followed by such a u turn to return to the status quo, the CE would resign. But that aint gonna happen at the RL is it? they'll just duck and go again. Such a short sighted view on the future of our game, and that from the organisation that should be leading it forward. thank goodness all has come good!

Good news for the city,despite supporting Hull, through my job I know alot of young players who have come through the ranks at both clubs, a white pathway for the good of the game.

Generally I think all fans and players have been United, my only disappointment is the comments by a few Rovers fans against the club, particularly Wilsom and Pearson, not really sure what they could do and if they went against the RFL it could cost the club in the long term, some Rovers fans claiming that the other way around Rovers would support Hull, which is absolute nonsense, like Hull there priority is their club.

As a Rovers fan I would have backed Hull to the hilt if the roles were reversed. Never for one minute did I want Rovers to take Hulls spot. I want as many kids in this City to have the opportunity to live their dreams.

Chris Chester and Gary Hetherington both spoke up against the decisions so I'm not sure why Pearson and Wilson couldn't (ok, we do know why really). Im certain that Neil Hudgell would have spoken out in support of Hull. He may be a pantomime villain to you guys but he understands Rugby League in this city and what it means to people. John Bastian has stated publicly that he would have been straight on the phone to Danny Wilson offering him his support.

Completely agree with that and the RFL should never have put the three Clubs through what they have. I'm not surprised that Hull haven't commented because the Club comments on very little at present, perhaps that denotes the calm before the storm!

NH 100% would not have, Bastian maybe, but it's easy to say in this situation, potentially they are risking their own clubs academy and their jobs if the RFL are set on only one academy in a city.

Hopefully the RFL will see sense and Rovers will improve their bid on the next two years to allow two elite academy in the city.

Agreed, sanctimonious claptrap. Plenty quick enough to ditch Rovers academy for better ones in the west when it suited.

You couldn't be more wrong. Some people just want was is best for the kids in this city. 2 well run Academies means more opportunities.

I'm not sure of any that headed West instead of going to Rovers (or Hull for that matter). Quite a few did during the COHA days. Hopefully that drain will halt now and the lads will choose Hull or Rovers.

I think that perhaps sometimes you should look at the bigger picture and what's good for our sport and youngsters rather than just looking at your own team and trying to score points.

It's not about point scoring. We've had 2 academies, a joint academy, 2 academies and if the primary objective of professional academies is to produce a pipeline of high quality SL players it's not worked, has it? The reality is neither will be an elite academy because the talent will be split/diluted across each, which was why the RFL wanted only 1 on Hull in their recommendation. Of course there are nice benefits in having more players involved but you've been going on about this since promising Kristian Bell would be climbing the steps at Wembley and here we are 15 years later or something and neither side has really delivered. I can see why the RFL were wanting to do something different. Don't lecture me about not wanting what's good for the sport. There are different perspectives, some informed by parochialism, some less so. Understanding the original rationale is important.

I make no apology for showing belief in young players, even if it potentially means being mis-quoted a decade down the line.

In the last Yorkshire Youth finals day before Covid hit, 7 of the finalists were from Hull. 7!

Participation in our City is up by over 40% on the back of work done by Hull, Rovers and Hull and District.

I see no reason why if everybody works together we can't drive participation up further, give more kids final experience that will stay with them for a lifetime and ultimately produce first team players for both of our clubs.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm unrealistic but I'll be doing my bit to try make it happen.

I've seen a few posts from Rovers fans still claiming we only got choosen because of bias, some idiots even claiming that because of two results (Cas under 18's and Rovers under 16's) we shouldn't have been picked. So far this season we have played the following games

Academy 4 games
one under 16's and under 17's game
One college game.

Rovers have played one game against us at under 16's.

Do Rovers even run a under 17's or run a college team?

Maybe just maybe our academy is better run, both presently and historically and were rightly awarded an elite licences if one has to be chosen from the city (Which I think is wrong).

Be intrested to read the thoughts of RBA or other Rovers fans on this.

A cynic might argue, that it's due, in part, to only one academy in the city creaming off the talent until recently.?