Salford abandon Academy

[londonrlfan]

Why?

They can takeover all the young talent in the Salford/Manchester area with no competition.

[Padge]

I seem to remember a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth when the Academy set-up was introduced, complaints that pro RL clubs shouldn't be running junior sides, "that's the job of the amateurs", how times change.

[Scubby]

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.

 

Because in the transition from Licensing to this system there should have been a minimum standards charter put in place that all elite clubs had to adhere to.

 

But no, out went facility standards, out went academy requirements and SL clubs can now play at The Hive and Dewsbury if they like regardless of capacity.

[Manx RL]

They can takeover all the young talent in the Salford/Manchester area with no competition.

Surely they'd prefer Salford to run an academy and then pick off the talent with Salford footing the development bill.

[hindle xiii]

On more than one occasion Salford - or Koukash - has exhibited a "balls to what you think" attitude to the game so I imagine the Red Devils will pick up who they want or need from the cast offs from Wigan's production line.

 

Like Josh Charnley in April/May time.

[Lobbygobbler]

Perhaps Salford are better to use funds on developing schools rugby and the local/Manchester amateur clubs?

[gingerjon]

Perhaps Salford are better to use funds on developing schools rugby and the local/Manchester amateur clubs?

 

I can pretty much guarantee they will be spending £0 on this.

 

And every single person who wanted a rugby league where "it's what you do on the pitch that counts" at the expense of everything else can enjoy seeing what that world looks like.

[Spidey]

Perhaps Salford are better to use funds on developing schools rugby and the local/Manchester amateur clubs?

Why would they do that? Without a youth side to sign on with they'll be sweeped up by other clubs with an academy set up

[Damien]

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

 

A club?

[Lowdesert]

Because in the transition from Licensing to this system there should have been a minimum standards charter put in place that all elite clubs had to adhere to.

 

But no, out went facility standards, out went academy requirements and SL clubs can now play at The Hive and Dewsbury if they like regardless of capacity.

You, I and plenty of others would have chosen that, but not the powers that be. Still remains to be seen how/if SCR link in to a CoE. All Koukash's BS of how well they were doing and the future. Well, money talks and the long game is buy 'em in.

'Fewer, better academies' is the RFL way now.

[Buderus]

I can't buy the not enough players excuse. Every NRL team has an under 20's team. A club like the Storm has very little local juniors and a club like the Roosters has no local juniors yet both still have under 20's teams. They simply find talent from other areas be it the country, overseas or in other junior districts. They also recruit players from sports such as union and develop them into league players. If there is a lack of young talent in salford then they should look elsewhere to recruit young players. Surely there would be plenty of young union players who could be given an opportunity or talent scouted from other areas/countries. Every single Super League team should have there own academy team or they shouldn't be in super league

[roughyedspud]

How is should be..

Super league - 1st team,under 21s/reserves,under 18s,under 16s

Championship & champ 1 - 1st team,under 21s/reserves, optional under 18s & 16s

[Buderus]

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.

I strongly agree with both of your points here. For mine the super league needs to be as strong as possible with the biggest clubs with the most fans and best facilities. This is why I was a fan of licensing (although it wasn't run aswell as it should have been). As an Australian who has no ties to a championship club I know I can't fully understand how hard it would be for your club to not be in Super League. However for the good of the sport Super League needs to be as strong as possible. Toulouse should be in now not wasting money fighting for promotion. Licensing (if done correctly) will allow the clubs with the most to offer an opportunity to thrive without the worry or expense of relegation. It also allows championship clubs an opportunity to build without spending unecessary money on promotion. That way a Bradford or a London can rebuild there club.

[Buderus]

Double post

[The Future is League]

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? 

Agree 100%

[mmp]

For a number of years the amateur game has been saying there are too many academies given the ratio to actual junior clubs/players. The reality was (is) that the academies were simply taking lads on to make up numbers with no prospect of ever making it to the top level and as a result, the amateur game was suffering very badly because a side with say, 16 lads, suddenly might have 10 and would fold. 

 

The sport does not have the playing base at amateur level for every pro club to have an academy. Fans on here might not like that - fans on here might say every pro club should have a reserves, a U21, a U18 and a U16s etc. but the stark, and very sad truth is that IF that was ever enforced you'd wipe out the amateur game because there simply are not the numbers.

 

Personal view - we need fewer not more academies, and (if there is money) invest in amateur rugby to increase its standards and numbers.  until the base grows substantially, there simply is no logic to more academies.

 

On a wider point - as a sport (and especially on these forums!) there is an obsession of constructing the sport around 'the pro game'. A thread on RL in Liverpool quickly turns into 'we need a semi-pro club there' and this thread is obsessing about pro clubs needing to run more sides. I don't know why RL thinks in this way. Most sports build themselves through their non-pro structures allowing their pro structure to select the best...we need to break away from the obsession of building around the pro game because the sport is now 121yrs and obsessing about making everything 'pro' really isn't helpful.

[mmp]

Here's that really (for me) depressing reality:

 

In the North West U18 league this year - that's all the North West from Oldham/Rochdale through to the core in St Helens/Wigan Warrington and then all of the areas outside of that, there is a total of just 25 teams. There is no U17 league.

 

If each has 20 players (some may have more but i guarantee in the bottom division some will have far fewer than 20) that would be 500 lads

 

If each SL team in the North West had a U18s of 20 that's 100 lads.

 

That'd be a 1 in 5 ratio which is simply unsustainable.  

[DoubleD]

Here's that really (for me) depressing reality:

In the North West U18 league this year - that's all the North West from Oldham/Rochdale through to the core in St Helens/Wigan Warrington and then all of the areas outside of that, there is a total of just 25 teams. There is no U17 league.

If each has 20 players (some may have more but i guarantee in the bottom division some will have far fewer than 20) that would be 500 lads

If each SL team in the North West had a U18s of 20 that's 100 lads.

That'd be a 1 in 5 ratio which is simply unsustainable.

Which is exactly why SL clubs should be looking outside their immediate area. Look at Worcester in union, they have 4 academies in the midlands covering a 3 hour area. SL clubs are not doing enough to grow the base. Minimum standards is a must for me

[Lowdesert]

For a number of years the amateur game has been saying there are too many academies given the ratio to actual junior clubs/players. The reality was (is) that the academies were simply taking lads on to make up numbers with no prospect of ever making it to the top level and as a result, the amateur game was suffering very badly because a side with say, 16 lads, suddenly might have 10 and would fold. 

 

The sport does not have the playing base at amateur level for every pro club to have an academy. Fans on here might not like that - fans on here might say every pro club should have a reserves, a U21, a U18 and a U16s etc. but the stark, and very sad truth is that IF that was ever enforced you'd wipe out the amateur game because there simply are not the numbers.

 

Personal view - we need fewer not more academies, and (if there is money) invest in amateur rugby to increase its standards and numbers.  until the base grows substantially, there simply is no logic to more academies.

 

On a wider point - as a sport (and especially on these forums!) there is an obsession of constructing the sport around 'the pro game'. A thread on RL in Liverpool quickly turns into 'we need a semi-pro club there' and this thread is obsessing about pro clubs needing to run more sides. I don't know why RL thinks in this way. Most sports build themselves through their non-pro structures allowing their pro structure to select the best...we need to break away from the obsession of building around the pro game because the sport is now 121yrs and obsessing about making everything 'pro' really isn't helpful.

It's obvious the amateur game is not what is was. Just go onto the community thread and the figures will be made freely available.

Clubs actually having academies and the number of players available are two separate issues. 40 odd years ago, all RL clubs had Colts teams. No money available and only an few amateur open age clubs about in Hull. There weren't enough players then, so Salford and any other pro club have no excuse.

[The Parksider]

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.

 

Yes your right. it folded recently. I'd disagree slightly on Hull, there was quite a long piece in RL world on the merger and IIRC their two academies were just swallowing too many kids that were never going to make it. This diluted the strength of the two teams, plus as you say it diluted the strength of the development people. So the merger gave Hull a stronger team and a stronger staff to run it.

 

If this is the way forward where do we end up? Leeds, Calder, Heavy Woolen, Humberside, Cheshire, greater manchester and merseyside?? 

[The Parksider]

Which is exactly why SL clubs should be looking outside their immediate area. Look at Worcester in union, they have 4 academies in the midlands covering a 3 hour area. SL clubs are not doing enough to grow the base. Minimum standards is a must for me

 

I don't get this - Worcester may have the whole of worcestershire, to go at and more right into Birmingham, plus the money to do this  with probably a more established RU game at the grammar schools etc.

 

How would Leeds run 4 academies?? North they run into areas that do not play RL east they run into Hull and Cas, West it's Bradford and south to Wakey & Huddersfield and again just past there there's no RL??

[The Parksider]

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? 

 

Fine. bring back licensing and then Bradford can claim a place on the basis of they run an academy.

But maybe Koukash will spot this and re-open an academy if the rules for SL entry change.

 

We already have a strong concensus of opinion that there are not enough quality young players to stock 14 academies, with Fartown just down the Huddersfield road and Leeds just across the Leeds Road there are close destinations for Bradford kids to follow an RL career and not be lost to the game.

 

Same for Salford, looking at the team they're mainly imports, but if there are some top local lads they won't go short of offers from several close by SL clubs to join an academy.

 

Sadly Koukash may no longer bring another academy to the SL table but he continues to bring his £Millions to that table which Mr.Green does not do.

 

Don't get me wrong, If I was in charge (god forbid) I'd stick Bradford straight back in Superleague, but I don't see a case to do that based on Bradford have an academy and Salford do not.

[The Parksider]

(Sale) Can takeover all the young talent in the Salford/Manchester area with no competition.

 

Not at all, every decent junior is competed for between Salford, Wigan, Saints, Wire,  Widnes and probably Leigh soon.

 

Budding quality RL professionals are prepared to travel with several crossing the Pennines  to further their careers at chosen top clubs.

 

This may be why Salford have decided not to bother. If another Dennis Betts emerges in Salford, it's not far to sign for the mighty Wigan, or triple trophy chasing Wire.

[nadera78]

For a number of years the amateur game has been saying there are too many academies given the ratio to actual junior clubs/players. The reality was (is) that the academies were simply taking lads on to make up numbers with no prospect of ever making it to the top level and as a result, the amateur game was suffering very badly because a side with say, 16 lads, suddenly might have 10 and would fold. 

 

The sport does not have the playing base at amateur level for every pro club to have an academy. Fans on here might not like that - fans on here might say every pro club should have a reserves, a U21, a U18 and a U16s etc. but the stark, and very sad truth is that IF that was ever enforced you'd wipe out the amateur game because there simply are not the numbers.

 

Personal view - we need fewer not more academies, and (if there is money) invest in amateur rugby to increase its standards and numbers.  until the base grows substantially, there simply is no logic to more academies.

 

On a wider point - as a sport (and especially on these forums!) there is an obsession of constructing the sport around 'the pro game'. A thread on RL in Liverpool quickly turns into 'we need a semi-pro club there' and this thread is obsessing about pro clubs needing to run more sides. I don't know why RL thinks in this way. Most sports build themselves through their non-pro structures allowing their pro structure to select the best...we need to break away from the obsession of building around the pro game because the sport is now 121yrs and obsessing about making everything 'pro' really isn't helpful.

 

 

Here's that really (for me) depressing reality:

 

In the North West U18 league this year - that's all the North West from Oldham/Rochdale through to the core in St Helens/Wigan Warrington and then all of the areas outside of that, there is a total of just 25 teams. There is no U17 league.

 

If each has 20 players (some may have more but i guarantee in the bottom division some will have far fewer than 20) that would be 500 lads

 

If each SL team in the North West had a U18s of 20 that's 100 lads.

 

That'd be a 1 in 5 ratio which is simply unsustainable.  

Absolutely spot on, with both posts.

 

We, as a sport, really do not utilise our resources well at all. Every club takes on kids that they know damn well will never have a career in the game - in fact it's the vast majority of them. It decimates the junior teams in the community game, and at the same time creates a weak Academy competition.

 

What we need are less Academies but of a higher standard. Put the lads who genuinely have a shot at making it (in SL, Championship or League 1) into a system where they train with the best players, under the guidance of the best coaches, using the best facilities, and playing games against similarly equipped teams. Hot house them (or forced rhubarb, if you northerners prefer) and then we'll get the results. We'd also benefit the community game by not removing so many lads who never return to their clubs and end up completely lost to the game.

 

The problem, as ever, is how to do this. To do it properly would probably mean 3 Academies West of the Penines, 3 East, 1 Cumbrian, 1 French and realistically turning London into a pan-European Academy. The clubs who already produce - we know who they are - wouldn't welcome any RFL interference (why would they?) but have the Hull clubs shown the way? Would Warrington and Widnes do likewise? Would Cas, Wakey and Fev? Bradford, Huddersfield and Halifax? Could it realistically be taken out of their hands? I suppose one way would be for the RFL to say there will only be 8 Academies - who wants one and how will you run it? Maybe that would force clubs to work together.

 

IMO it's clear we need to better utilise what we've got, but it's the same old question of implementation.

[Adeybull]

...but I don't see a case to do that based on Bradford have an academy and Salford do not.

And neither do I. Places in the top flight should be earned, through satisfying a number of criteria - on-field and off-field.  We have seen two years of Bradford totally blowing the best oportunities they are ever likely to have to do the former; which in turn has very much exacerbated their problems with achieveing the latter.

 

But what really riles me: Salford survived in SL and London and Bradford were relegated. In a year when, as it subsequently transpired, Salford breached the salary cap rules. And now we have Salford - by which we mean Koukash - again sticking two fingers up at the RFL, and just rubbing London and Bradfords' noses in it.

 

We had any number of "helpful" posters on here, and elsewhere telling Bradford it had to "cut its cloth" when ejected from SL along with London in the cull to 12 teams. Part of Bradford (and London) "Cutting that cloth" was to maintain an academy and junior development programme.  On far less funding. Now we see Salford effectively, again, cutting someone else's cloth for the benefit of their own. 

 

I have no issue with Salford fans - other than those who told us to "cut our cloth" - and inded have massive sympathy with those who are embarrassed about the conduct of their owner. But something is terribly wrong with the game when clubs with rich owners can seemingly ride roughshod over those without, off the pitch as well as on it.