LeytherRob

There are some laughable narratives going on in people's heads here. Of all the things levelled at Beaumont, people trying to say he doesn't back his coaches is just ridiculous. Rowley left to join Toronto and the money/opportunity that went with it, Jukes was immediately backed to the hilt and ultimately had to resign under fan pressure to force a change when our season was falling apart in 2018, even then Beaumont gave him a job within his company straight away. Purtill left during the uncertainty with a deal on the table for him if he wanted it. Now to Duffy, he himself has stated in the media a few weeks back he would step aside if he didn't get results as he didn't want to hurt the club and his pre/post game interviews have increasingly given the impression of someone running out of ideas to fix things up. If you(or any of the other posters trying to paint this as Beaumont throwing his toys out the pram) really still believe this was a straight sacking, maybe have a think about how many times you've seen a joint statement from owner and coach as has been the case here? I certainly can't think of any. God only knows how posters on here would react if he went on sky after the game to announce the coach had been sacked like Pearson did..

Why would the RFL bother investing in colleges rather than the community game, which is a far better place to develop talent and already has structures in place?

But it isn't how youth sport works in this country. Not every college offers the same courses or to the same standard, so any player who is taking their education seriously would be stupid to make that decision purely because a pro club has slapped their name on the college team. There are different rules rules mature students at colleges than university. University has no age limit because everyone is an adult. They don't just let a 40 year old enroll in college with a bunch of 16/17 year old for obvious reasons. How could the rules be tweaked for colleges exactly?

Such a frustrating listen for all the reasons you've listed. Not really any wiser to the actual reasons behind decisions and lots of contradictory positions. He repeatedly cites impact on the community game and too many academies as main factors but doesn't explain why 2 spots were left open even though designated for heartland clubs. He mentions finances as an issue but then admits to the question about funding on the application(which incidentally stacks up with Carvells comments about no funding which were previously dismissed on here).

It's not as simple as just switching switching fixtures of their current academy to playing college teams. Clubs have to link up with a college and any players have to be enrolled in that particular college. Clubs can ask youngsters to enroll there but ultimately it puts the college in charge of your youth recruitment.

Toulouse would probably be doing even worse to be honest. A quick look through their squad and 14 of them are over 30 years old, including most of their pack which contains a 35 year old Harrison Hansen and 36 year old Remi Casty. Andrew Dixon at 31 is actually one of their younger pack members. Fine for breezing past most of the championship, but they would be seriously struggling in SL, especially one without scrums which is easily the fastest it's been in a long time. If Toulouse do finally make the jump this year, they are going to be faced with a pretty monumental overhaul of their squad and would be needing at least 10-15 new players. Even Kheirallah and Ford who have been the engine room of the squad for years now both turn 32 next year.

I assume he means Peyroux and Paulo, from Saints, but both had already signed for Toulouse ahead of the decision to promote Leigh(which also answers his question as to why we didn't sign them). Incidentally, Flower, Tierney, Gelling, Thornley in the Leigh squad won grand finals, whilst McCarthy and Russell have played in grand finals.

Very true and something i've noted previously. Out of curiosity, I have actually just had a quick scan through our results and in the league we have started with 6 different combinations in 7 games so far, which doesn't even consider the games where Mellor has gone off injured twice forcing reshuffles. We've also had 4 different full backs so it's hardly a surprise the team hasn't had any fluency. I do find it equal parts funny and exasperating that Reynolds seems to cop the blame, even though him and Wildie have probably put in the best partnership so far against the 2 best teams in Saints and Wigan. Ellis had an absolute howler yesterday in attack and defence.

There were still only 10 points in the game with 25 to play, the problem is every time we get 1 player back from injury we seem to lose 2 more. We started yesterday with only 2 recognised props and were holding our own whilst they were on the pitch, as soon as the interchanges started we had Tyrone McCarthy and Peteru at prop and the team were having to exert themselves extra hard to make any dent in a big Huddersfield pack. We lost Peteru to a head test, Sidlow came back on and almost immediately did his knee and then Russell got injured(possibly another head knock but couldn't tell) meaning we were down to 1 on the bench with about 30 minutes left. At one point Junior S'au was basically playing prop. All that coupled with increasing indiscipline due to fatigue and Hudd grinding us down with repeat sets meant we defended for much of the 2nd half. It didn't surprise me one bit the flood gates opened in those last 15 mins or so, even if it was really disappointing to watch. I dread to think who is going to be available in the forwards for Hull KR because our pack has just been decimated over the past 3/4 games.

How are any of the reactions different to the entire game of football when the SL was announced? We're hardly alone in the sporting world, or society in general for giving opinions on social media. This is the world we live in now. Is it really any worse than back in the 80s when you'd turn on TV and see Alex Murphy turning the air blue in a Wigan changing room whilst the players sat sipping beer?

How is stating Wigan, Wire, Salford and Leigh having teams in the NW 1 misinformation? Which part of what I said is incorrect and needed correcting?

Welcome to the age of social media. This is still nothing compared to the outcry over the football superleague.

I'll give you Salford, clearly they have a second team if they have one in the Premier division. That being said, I'm not really sure answering my point of Wigan, Wire and others having their teams in NW division 1, by listing a set of completely(except one) different set of clubs is quite the 'gotcha' you think it is.

And my opinion is that your argument that cat 3 academies are fine for other clubs fell pretty flat when it turned out you incorrectly were claiming Wakefield didnt have a Cat 1 academy. Now you've gone searching for a strawman in Garreth Carvell rather than just holding your hands up to basing your opinion on incorrect facts.

Opinions are subjective by their nature. That's what opinions are. Presenting an opinion is different to presenting a fact, it's what you believe, not what happened. He believes heartland clubs have been unfairly affected, he states that the feedback given was geography based, he states that there wasn't money at stake in the bid process and it was about participation. You believe the college system is an acceptable substitute, you stated that Wakefield don't have a cat 1 academy. See the difference?

Maybe, but again, he's clearly presenting it an opinion rather than a straight fact.Ironic you want to try and use an infactual opinion to claim he can't be trusted to present straight facts to direct questions about his bid after you just gleefully claimed Wakefield only have a cat 3 academy as proof the college system works. When clearly they don't and it doesn't.

Until they release the criteria and full judgements no one on this thread can say with any certainty why the spots weren't filled.

You used what is clearly his opinion, whether you agree with it or not, it to try and discredit the direct answers he gave specific to the application he was directly involved in. There is a big difference between him claiming the RFL told him they were picking expansion over heartland(which he didn't) and making straightforward answers such as feedback provided on the bid(geographical location to neighbors) or money involved(£0). Now maybe in time when full judgements are released that will turn out to be a lie, but him having an opinion I disagree with doesn't instantly discount everything else he said. Just like I'm not going to discount everything you've said just because you incorrectly claimed Wakefield only had a cat 3 academy.

And you believed wakefield didn't have a cat 1 academy before this set of licenses, does that make everything you say wrong now too?

Clutching at straws to be pasting what is clearly an opinion based tweet as evidence of him being proved infactual. In any case, there are 4 less heartland academies than in 2017 when the last judgments were made, so it's not unreasonable for him to believe the heartland clubs are paying the price.

Yeah and as I've said repeatedly, cat 3 can work well in conjunction with a Cat 1 to good effect, but is not a good replacement. They certainly won't have blooded the players coming through in those leagues, they would be playing in the proper SL academy league. We don't know what clubs did or didn't hit yet because the gradings haven't been formally released yet. We don't even know what criteria they were judged against because the notion of geographical footprint in relation to neighboring clubs is new.

You mean Wakefield who were awarded a cat 1 license in 2017? They were never denied a license, just graded as 'requires improvement' the same as Bradford.

Yes, but what relevance does that have to anything?

Unless you are going to get rid of all academies, that isn't going away. It'll just become even more competitive for players to catch the attention of the fewer scouts.

Which one?