Salford abandon Academy

[LeeF]

The Cumbria situation is dire but they have an academy so there's a conduit for the talent that is still interested .

 

Hull doubled up to one academy because there weren't the numbers in terms of quality. If there were enough quality young players we would not have to import so may overseas players.

 

As went the anecdote the other month, this father was watching his lad at a junior game in west yorkshire and there were scouts from all the local SL clubs all looking at the same players.

 

Imagine any quality young player at say Eccles just close to Barton and the Salford Club. He could take the pitch with scouts from Wire, Saints, Wigan, Salford Leigh and Widnes on the touchline.

 

I'm not sure of what your Manchester academy would replace, but Salford academy can't be far off the same thing Tom?

Wrong again Parksider

There is no Academy in Cumbria It was taken over by Widnes in 2014 and shut last season as the players prepare to play were not of the required standard for numerous reasons

[The Future is League]

Something is very rotten with the game, when 5th-in-the-Championship Bradford are endeavouring to maintain a full academy set-up, and Super Duper League Salford - on a number of times more central funding from Rot Hall - calmly decide they can no longer be bothered? Where will they look to for their young players of the future?  The Bradford Academy, for one?  As well as those of the SL clubs who DO invest a lot in their Academies? 

I'm seriously of the opinion now that no academy = no Super League status.

The RFL needs to punish teams with no academies.

[Saint Toppy]

Terible news if true.

I'm a fan of the good Doctor ,but ifs its true he got this horribly wrong.

I'm in the camp which thinks that if you don't have your own academies you shouldn't be in Super League

Agree 100%

If you want to play SL it should be compulsory to run U16's, U19's and Reserves. Most Championship clubs can't afford to run junior teams so all the young kids need somewhere to go & play within the professional game.

 

If Salford have scrapped all their junior teams then i'll be hoping they end up in the middle 8's and then go down next year. The game can't continue to rely on a small handful of clubs to develop all the young players

[EastLondonMike]

co-sign. i'd also suggest that teams coming in to SL would have had to have run academies for a minimum of 5 years. Otherwise we'll probably see clubs only operating such things when SL has been secured.

All clubs should operate Academy and reserve teams.

[Konkrete]

Reports surfacing that Salford will only be running a first team in 2017 with all youth teams gone

Say what you want about licencing - this wouldn't have happened then

Should there still be a minimum requirement for SL to operate an academy?

 

That's the thing about licencing, it was a strategic instrument intending to consolidate, grow and provide an even competition.  Without it we have the every man for himself approach usually backed by a rich sugar daddy.  You can't have a healthy competition (on field and off it) without a sufficient player pool at the core.  The licencing system recognised that and was a building block working towards that end.  However disappointing it comes as no surprise that Salford are following the lead of others on this front and will just buy off the shelf as and when they need to.

 

Our structure is not fit for purpose!  Boring and repetitive I know, but true.

 

All players were once kids.  How is a kid likely to get into the sport?  First you need to capture their imagination and then provide them with an opportunity to play.  SL clubs and the RFL should have those themes at the heart of everything they do.  The NRL player pool is huge because they work towards that, they make it so.  We would like it over here but, aside from a few, are not prepared to do anything about it.

 

Just to remind folk, since the start of SL in 1996, 20 years ago, here are some shameful facts.

 

SL Winners (4)

Wigan, Saints, Bulls, Leeds

 

SL Finalists (2)

Hull, Wire

 

SL Academies (eight)

Wire, Cas, Wigan, Saints, Trin, Leeds, Giants, Widnes

 

NRL Winners (12)

Manly, Newcastle, Broncos, Storm, Chooks, Tigers, Panthers, Souths, Bulldogs, St George, Cowboys, Sharks

 

NRL Finalists (2)

Eels, NZ

 

The only club that haven't appeared in a GF are the Titans, who have been in the comp 9 years, and this year they reached the play-offs.

[DoubleD]

Is it too late to relegate them?

[Saintslass]

Does anyone have a link showing this story to be true?

[nadera78]

We all know there aren't enough kids of required standard coming into the Academies - all the clubs are fighting over too scarce a resource and the best kids go to the best Academies. It's the same clubs producing every year, with just the odd one or two coming from the other clubs. If I had a talented kid and two clubs were interested, and likely that both are within 10 miles of me, I'd send him to the one most likely to develop him fully.

 

I could genuinely understand if Salford said they didn't have the numbers coming through to justify running the Academy on their own, and that they wanted to run a joint one with another club(s). Hull FC and KR have done it and I don't have a problem with it. 

 

But to simply axe it is unforgivable. 

[Spidey]

Does anyone have a link showing this story to be true?

Nothing has come out of Salford yet

Martin Sadler reported on Twitter

Article on Loverugbyleague

[Scubby]

He's done it because he can. This is a game leadership issue about what are the expectations of an elite club. Regardless of what the SL clubs think, the RFL could have got this through by putting together a minimum standards charter. This would include facilities, infrastructure, development.

 

It doesn't have to be licensing for this to be in place.

[GeordieSaint]

He's done it because he can. This is a game leadership issue about what are the expectations of an elite club. Regardless of what the SL clubs think, the RFL could have got this through by putting together a minimum standards charter. This would include facilities, infrastructure, development.

 

You know my opinions about the game's leadership; they do need to grip this as there are expectations of an elite club as many have posted on here already. The stupid decision not to include criteria for promotion to SL when licencing went has resulted in this; so Koukash can do what he wants. But it stinks and is simply not good enough. The game is rotten at the moment and needs somebody to grab it and sort it out as Wood is ruining it.

[EagleEyePie]

It should be mandatory for Super League clubs to run an academy and a reserve side. If clubs have to use merged academies to make it viable then I guess that's a reasonable compromise but every side should have a level below the first team where they can develop talent.

 

For a club to axe its academy is poor. If it's down to cost cutting as has been suggested then it obviously suggests that Koukash feels it's better to maintain current expenditure on the first team squad at the cost of losing the academy. It doesn't sound like a sustainable approach though and it must surely impact on Salford's squad depth for the foreseeable future given that there's no academy side to promote from in case of injury.

 

Still, there would presumably be more than enough money for clubs to afford academy sides and reserves if more of the money from the TV deal went to Super League clubs. It's great that we've got some talented players in the Championship but Super League would be much better off if the talent was concentrated in the top league and all clubs had the money to pay the full salary cap with some left over. At that point the salary cap could be raised and perhaps rugby league might seem like a better career choice for young players who would otherwise be lost to the game. At the moment our flagship league is a bit of a disappointment. 

[longboard]

Disappointing news.

 

Academies, second teams etc can be closed down quickly but it is difficult, and it usually takes many years, to create and establish them as successful parts of a club.

[Adeybull]

Still, there would presumably be more than enough money for clubs to afford academy sides and reserves if more of the money from the TV deal went to Super League clubs. It's great that we've got some talented players in the Championship but Super League would be much better off if the talent was concentrated in the top league and all clubs had the money to pay the full salary cap with some left over. At that point the salary cap could be raised and perhaps rugby league might seem like a better career choice for young players who would otherwise be lost to the game. At the moment our flagship league is a bit of a disappointment. 

1 - Please confirm you mean by taking money away from the Championship?

 

2 - If so, please confirm that you understand that would be theft? The Championship clubs receive a share of the TV money primarily because Sky paid in the deal for the TV rights to the Championship.  It is not the fault of the Championship that Sky does not choose to televise matches.  The Championship clubs are unable to try and market the TV rights to their games, because the RFL already sold the rights for them. And in any case, in clear breach of the agreement for which the clubs voted, so would lead to legal challenge. Is that what you nevertheless propose?

 

3 - Please state how much extra money a SL club would receive if such theft WAS nevertheless allowed?  And what % increase to a SL club's annual income that would represent?

 

4 - Please explain why your proposal would benefit the game overall, regarding the majority of SL clubs that DO run an academy (forget academy SIDES, it is the academy itself that is the issue), rather than just providing more money for first team players or the club owners?

 

5 - Please explain how, by seriously damaging the Championship clubs financially (maybe putting some out of business) and making THEM a much less attractive proposition for youngsters, you would improve the number of players enticed into and not lost to the game?  Bearing in mind that there are far more Championship clubs than there are SL clubs who seem unwilling or unable to fund an academy?

 

I'm sure you have thought all this through before making that statement, so the answers should be enlightening.

[Adeybull]

The game can't continue to rely on a small handful of clubs to develop all the young players.

Including the London and Bradford clubs, languishing in the Championship with far far less funding than SL clubs scrapping academies.  If a SL club is not prepared to run an academy, and a Championship club IS, then in the interests of the game should not the former be ejected from SL and replaced by a latter?  Especially since one of those Championship club's academies finished above all but four of the SL clubs in the 2016 competition, and the other is crucial for retaining a RL pathway in the Capital? 

[gingerjon]

Who knew so many people were fans of licencing?

[Konkrete]

Who knew so many people were fans of licencing?

 

There's a third way.  One that combines P/R (in whatever style you like) alongside minimum standards.  One of those minimum standards being youth development.  I don't think it's rocket surgery.

[Lowdesert]

Salford have scrapped the 19s team and dumped their academy kids ! Informed by letter yesterday ! No wonder the game is dying, I wonder how many aged grouped amateur TEAMS fall by the way side because the better players are taken away to early from the team they start their Rugby League journey with.

Since the RFL have wrestled and bribed themselves into control they have changed and moved laws to allow the bigger amateur clubs to poach the better players in their district and even promoted this by directing players at the service area's

If the RFL need to control then they need to employ people who are from the coalface and allow them to have their say into how is the best way to run the amateur game because it's clear that the running of juniors is different from running the open-age and running the open-age is equally different from running a professional club, in fact at open-age you have at lease two different levels, the regional teams and the NCL.

It's about time Red Hall woke up and realised some people get into Rugby League for the enjoyment and not control

How are the RFL responsible for Salford ending their Academy? ( if true, TRL say 'rhumered!).

RFL say they will 'support clubs in the development, recruitment and retention of elite playing talent', whilst also stating that they will use a 'light touch' on regulation. Basically supporting Salford, not interfering (other than auditing) with their Academy and let them run it they're own way, within audit guidelines.

It's in Salfords interest to have an Academy developing young players through to SL level. So far, the RFL have been quite good with SCR after their audit results barely improved at a snails pace. They also have an option, if they do not run an Academy, to develop a Centre of Excellence. Whether they do that remains to be seen.

The RFL, despite they're shortfalls, cannot be blamed for Salfords half cocked attempt at developing kids.

[Lowdesert]

The Cumbria situation is dire but they have an academy so there's a conduit for the talent that is still interested .

 

Hull doubled up to one academy because there weren't the numbers in terms of quality. If there were enough quality young players we would not have to import so may overseas players.

 

As went the anecdote the other month, this father was watching his lad at a junior game in west yorkshire and there were scouts from all the local SL clubs all looking at the same players.

 

Imagine any quality young player at say Eccles just close to Barton and the Salford Club. He could take the pitch with scouts from Wire, Saints, Wigan, Salford Leigh and Widnes on the touchline.

 

I'm not sure of what your Manchester academy would replace, but Salford academy can't be far off the same thing Tom?

Cumbria don't have an academy.

I would say that HullKR's academy demise was more to do with lack of development people and the way the academy was run, just as much as availability.

[EagleEyePie]

1 - Please confirm you mean by taking money away from the Championship?

 

2 - If so, please confirm that you understand that would be theft? The Championship clubs receive a share of the TV money primarily because Sky paid in the deal for the TV rights to the Championship.  It is not the fault of the Championship that Sky does not choose to televise matches.  The Championship clubs are unable to try and market the TV rights to their games, because the RFL already sold the rights for them. And in any case, in clear breach of the agreement for which the clubs voted, so would lead to legal challenge. Is that what you nevertheless propose?

 

3 - Please state how much extra money a SL club would receive if such theft WAS nevertheless allowed?  And what % increase to a SL club's annual income that would represent?

 

4 - Please explain why your proposal would benefit the game overall, regarding the majority of SL clubs that DO run an academy (forget academy SIDES, it is the academy itself that is the issue), rather than just providing more money for first team players or the club owners?

 

5 - Please explain how, by seriously damaging the Championship clubs financially (maybe putting some out of business) and making THEM a much less attractive proposition for youngsters, you would improve the number of players enticed into and not lost to the game?  Bearing in mind that there are far more Championship clubs than there are SL clubs who seem unwilling or unable to fund an academy?

 

I'm sure you have thought all this through before making that statement, so the answers should be enlightening.

 

1. Not quite.

 

2. I'm not suggesting this is something that should happen now, I'm saying it should have happened when the TV deal was negotiated - and the new TV deal should not have been negotiated so far in advance and without interesting other broadcasters. The new structure has effectively lumped the Super League and Championship into one package. Sure, the million pound game was very exciting but it effectively means Sky have the rights to Championship games but never show them. Basically, Super League is what they want but they've also removed Championship games from TV for the majority of the year. Surely there was an opportunity to negotiate both deals separately? Even if Sky weren't interested in rights for the Championship another broadcasters may have been. Sky might be more willing to buy Championship rights separately if they thought their monopoly on rugby league was broken. Still, my ideal solution is below...

 

3. If the TV deals couldn't be negotiated separately then Super League should have been cut further to 10 teams. Each Super League team receives just over £1.8m from the TV deal, which is only just enough to cover the cap. Reduce Super League to 10 teams and there's an extra £3.6m to go to Super League clubs. The two teams dropping down from the Super League should receive more than the Championship sides from the TV deal so they'd receive around £800,000 each. That would still leave the 10 Super League teams with an extra £200k per year, ensuring all can afford to spend to the full extent of the salary cap and run reserve sides. As stated, waiting before negotiating a new TV deal could have increased the TV even more, but current figures are all I can use as an example.

 

4. The extra money would ensure that all clubs can run an academy but more importantly also a reserve side. Even if most of the money goes onto improving the squad directly, it means more of the talent is in Super League and so the competition is more competitive, more entertaining and more attractive for viewers. Super League is the flagship competition for rugby league in this country and it doesn't benefit the game if it looks weak. Sure, a stronger Championship could be great to watch but if it's not on TV for most of the year there's little benefit of that strength being essentially behind closed doors. The Premier League is what sells British football, not the Championship. The same goes for rugby league, but we're not doing a great job of it.

 

5. There are only a handful of full time teams in the Championship. When the championship was essentially a part time league the game wasn't necessarily in a worse off position. A strong Championship is great for those clubs, but it's not money that's going to grow the game, it's going to retain the status quo. Young players dream of playing at the very top level. They want to play for the best teams against the best players. A competitive Super League is an exciting prospect. Playing for Wigan, Warrington, Leeds, Hull (even Bradford!) etc in the world club challenge against teams like Brisbane, the Rabbitohs etc is what young players dream of. They don't really dream of playing for Batley against Swinton on a cold Sunday afternoon.

 

Big market teams in a big market competition is what puts money into the game. The current set up has produced some excitement this year, but if rugby league really wants to bring in the big money then it needs to concentrate on making the Super League clubs into big, marketable clubs. As important as traditional heartland clubs like Batley, Featherstone, Swinton, Hunslet are to rugby league, they don't sell the game and they don't interest sponsors. An elite competition with clubs like that would be a little embarrassing and feeds into the narrative of RL being a small northern sport played in small northern towns. We need to use the money to strengthen the clubs that can bring money into the game. We only have a small number of rugby league teams in this country that are realistically an attractive prospect to sponsors and those outside the game. You might get people with only a casual interest in the game taking notice of games from the big names like Wigan, Leeds, Wire, Warrington, Hull. There's less chance of interesting casual viewers if it's Wakefield vs Leigh. In the same way, people are more likely to tune into a football match if it's Man Utd vs Arsenal than if it's Bournemouth v Sunderland. The game needs the strongest possible league with the strongest possible clubs to flourish.

[londonrlfan]

This is shameful, no doubt Koukash will blame the RFL for this somehow. What has he actually brought to Salford?

[gingerjon]

There's a third way.  One that combines P/R (in whatever style you like) alongside minimum standards.  One of those minimum standards being youth development.  I don't think it's rocket surgery.

 

It really isn't, is it?.

 

And yet we had that.

 

And when Hunslet didn't get promoted the whining was unbelievable.

[londonrlfan]

Sale will be loving this too.

[Red Willow]

The Doc said he was going to cut costs shame this is the method he picked. I wonder what these means for young players such as Ryan Lannon on the verge of the first team.

Every time I think Salford are on an even keel something happens

[Manx RL]

Sale will be loving this too.

Why?