Salford abandon Academy

[Saint Toppy]

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

 

 

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.

If we ever return to licencing a SL place should be based on far more than just running an academy;

Good on-field performances - which Bradford didn't manage this year

A stable financial position - Which Bradford aren't in

A decent, modern ground - Which Bradford don't have

[mmp]

Going back to me earlier point - the numbers simply do not justify every pro-club having an academy. It would (and has been shown to) be damaging to the sport overall.

 

So no issue with a minimum standard debate but it shouldn't include academies in my view. Far better would be a minimum expectation around investment in community rugby league (at the U11 level and down in my view). That wouldn't be in the immediate interest of any club of course - but much better for the sport as a whole as we need urgent action to grow the base of the pyramid or else we will keep having the same discussions year after year and after year without the underlying issue ever fixed.

[Lowdesert]

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 RFL want 'fewer, better' Academies. Maybe someone read the piece during the Walker/Lindsay period and decided it was a good idea that needed reworking. I don't, personally, go along with it, but that's easy to say and there are many many influences, pluses and minuses.

People are forgetting these Academies have to provide education and if that College doesn't offer the level or/and type of course kids are going to look somewhere else. This happens. Clubs have to consider this, not only to better the kids, but to encourage parents influence. RL can quickly become 2nd choice.

Academies need dedicated people working within them, paid the going rate, not just average coaches who are supporters and need work, voluntary or otherwise. Not easy to find these people as coaching at a high level is highly demanding.

Bunging a pro player in the role, when he might not really want it, or have the skills to do it is common. Just playing pro doesn't give you those skills automatically, it's a different mindset and the long game. Did Gaz Carvell really want the academy role for SCR or was he just looking for work? Did he then want to be the welfare officer or just pushed into it because they needed one? I don't know (not aimed at Gaz personally). At the end of the day clubs have to recruit the right people and pay them the going rate. Not all do.

[Lowdesert]

Going back to me earlier point - the numbers simply do not justify every pro-club having an academy. It would (and has been shown to) be damaging to the sport overall.

 

So no issue with a minimum standard debate but it shouldn't include academies in my view. Far better would be a minimum expectation around investment in community rugby league (at the U11 level and down in my view). That wouldn't be in the immediate interest of any club of course - but much better for the sport as a whole as we need urgent action to grow the base of the pyramid or else we will keep having the same discussions year after year and after year without the underlying issue ever fixed.

How is providing a facility, which not only encourages kids to be better, academically, but also get them playing high end RL damaging? What proof?

Investment in the community game is absolutely in the interests of Clubs.

[The Parksider]

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.

 

 

I imagine they'll do that as other clubs do, plus the cast offs from the NRL.

 

Salford aren't alone in spending money on ineffectual academies. HKR effectively dumped their academy, as they stand they can get Hull's cast offs. Wakefield can continue to get Leeds cast offs. etc. 

 

And if Bradford produce a gem or two maybe Koukash will offer them better contracts than Mr. Green can. Maybe Kooks "had the balls" to make a cute business decision.

[The Parksider]

The RFL want 'fewer, better' Academies.

 

People are forgetting these Academies have to provide education and if that College doesn't offer the level or/and type of course kids are going to look somewhere else. This happens. Clubs have to consider this, not only to better the kids, but to encourage parents influence. RL can quickly become 2nd choice.

Academies need dedicated people working within them, paid the going rate, not just average coaches who are supporters and need work, voluntary or otherwise. Not easy to find these people as coaching at a high level is highly demanding.

 

 

How do you see fewer better academies being set up, would retaining the tie to only certain clubs running academies (Lets say Wigan, Wire, Cas, Saints, Leeds, Huddersfield, Catalans and Hull simply give those clubs even more advantages to remain the games top clubs and further distance a new breed of "non-academy" SL clubs, into being even more clubs that feed off the scraps and make the numbers up?  

 

Or does the RFL take control??

[The Parksider]

If we ever return to licencing a SL place should be based on far more than just running an academy;

Good on-field performances - which Bradford didn't manage this year

A stable financial position - Which Bradford aren't in

A decent, modern ground - Which Bradford don't have

 

Did you leave out of Bradford's licence assessment their rather large fan base as well as their wealthy owner??

 

Can you now list the good bits of Wakefield's license application in contrast??

[The Parksider]

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

 

Survival and Superleague. Not a bad little package?

[The Parksider]

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.

 

(some nice reality posts from Eagle Eye, Buderus and Nadera...........)

 

Fair enough Adey.

 

Are you really without a rich owner? Or just a canny rich owner waiting for the system to change?

 

As for Kooks his actions look like the actions of a man who has no intention of throwing money at SL ever again.

 

You and your club may in time get the last laugh.

[DoubleD]

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??

It doesn't have to mirror what Worcester have done but the basis and mentality behind it. SL clubs should have development officers in areas outside their immediate vicinity to expand their pool as well as core audience. Not enough do this and are too lazy which is why minimum standards should be used

[damp squib]

This is just another example to me of how vital it is that Toulouse get established as a SL club. They have youth teams at every age group (sometimes multiple teams) and the perfect basis for an academy. Even more importantly, they cover an untapped new player pool so they're not just cannibalizing an existing group of players. Catalans currently recruit from the Toulouse area but obviously they can't dedicate the same resources as they do for the Perpignan area, so many players will be missed. Hopefully Toronto can start providing yet another pool of players in a few years. This is a huge benefit of expansion.

[Lowdesert]

How do you see fewer better academies being set up, would retaining the tie to only certain clubs running academies (Lets say Wigan, Wire, Cas, Saints, Leeds, Huddersfield, Catalans and Hull simply give those clubs even more advantages to remain the games top clubs and further distance a new breed of "non-academy" SL clubs, into being even more clubs that feed off the scraps and make the numbers up?  

 

Or does the RFL take control??

RFL won't want to take control. They've already plumped for a 'light touch' in their regulation and don't have the resources. I can't see it happening.

1. Academy

2. CoE

3. Player development Clubs (accredited community clubs).

These were the three options in the proposals, but 'sustainability, is also one of the core principles. If any of the options aren't sustainable, by the Pro Club, then I don't know what's supposed to happen. Too weak in principle for me.

[mmp]

How is providing a facility, which not only encourages kids to be better, academically, but also get them playing high end RL damaging? What proof?

 

 

I'm not sure the Academies actually operate as you describe but thats another matter. Most I think (unless there has been radical change) simply train with the club and when it comes to facilities - its a training facility for sport. The academic side is provided through typical education routes.

 

It's also not an issue wit the facility if such a facility existed. Its a simple numbers game that there isn't the base to support so many academies as exist.

 

The situation with the Academy programmes and the impact on North West (don't know about the other side) was as follows:

 

Pro clubs signed players up for their structures and placed restrictions on them playing for their amateur clubs

 

Because of the ratio described before that meant some amateur sides had insufficient players to continue because it was 5 pro clubs effectively taking 1/5 of the whole playing population at that age group out of the fixture programme.  A club might have had 17 players on the books and 5 signed with a pro side leaving them with just 12. Some of the top amateur sides might have 6/7/8 lads on pro clubs programmes. An injury, holidays etc might leave a side with 8/9 on a given weekend so games started to get cancelled. Scale that up to an entire regional league programme and you can see why it might It threaten a whole competition. 

 

Some sides folded. The lads not selected for the pro ranks in many cases, disappeared from the game as their 'club' couldn't field a side.

 

It wouldn't be as bad if the pro clubs actively sought to integrate the lads they didn't keep back into the amateur game but the truth was that once let go, they are literally let go. Often they didn't come back to the community ranks.

 

I'll say it again - in the whole of the North West league this season there are just 25 sides at U18 and there is no U17 league anymore. That is 500(ish) players. Thats in a geography with 5 SL clubs and 3 other semi-pro sides. No other sport has such a disjointed pyramid structure and its a sad reflection on the game. In my view, the situation was part caused by the 'over-recruiting' of the pro clubs over recent years of lads to fill their books even when they knew the lads in question would never make the grade. Lads were used to make up numbers and that wasn't fair on them or good for the sport.

[Lowdesert]

I'm not sure the Academies actually operate as you describe but thats another matter. Most I think (unless there has been radical change) simply train with the club and when it comes to facilities - its a training facility for sport. The academic side is provided through typical education routes.

 

It's also not an issue wit the facility if such a facility existed. Its a simple numbers game that there isn't the base to support so many academies as exist.

 

e sport.

I have edited short your post, but not edited the front end copied here. Regarding not being sure whether Academies operate as I say, well, they do. See attached list which is a sample:.

Leeds Rhinos - LCB, Leeds Rhinos Foundation

Hull - Bishop Burton College.

Saints - Copley International College

Huddersfield - Huddersfield New College

Wire - Warrington Collegiate

Wakey - Wakefield College

Wigan - Wigan Education Academy

Fax - Calderdale College

How can kids going to these facilities, having an opportunity for a good education and a shot at professional RL be damaging? Give me proof.

[londonrlfan]

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

Exactly. There's so many areas close by that are ripe for development and unearthing new talent, North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, North East, Merseyside, East Yorkshire (Beverley), Lincolnshire, Cheshire, Lancashire (Preston, Blackpool), even the Northern Midlands towns. You can't have a small spread based around a few teams fighting for few players, you have to open more areas to the game. In Australia they're looking in Perth for players now. We don't only look in London and the SE, we've started looking in the Midlands too.

[londonrlfan]

A club?

Did Salford not exist before he came along?

[mmp]

I'm not saying it's damaging to the kids. I'm saying that too many academies is damaging the sport in the NW. Proven by the chaos which was the NW amateur RL season at those age groups in recent years...

I haven't got recordings of the arguments between pro clubs and amateur sides (though I witnessed a number from both sides) but I'm sure the league minutes will record the issues.

As for the list of 'Academies' - that is a list of colleges in towns where ther are clubs with academies. Two of those arrangements listed I've been to and seen and another one of those arrangements I know very very well and I can tell you - it's not as you're describing it. It is a club and some of the academy players go to the education establishment listed - not even a majority. It's not a requirement for the academy player to go to the college at all and in reality the ones who are going to the college are the local lads who would have gone there anyway. The lads on the academy who live out of the town go in some cases, to the college where they live. The academies are not like those in premier football where players live, eat, sleep within an academy setting. You keep referring to them as 'facilities' as if they're the latter and they are not.

[Marauder]

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.

The RFL interfered with the amateur game with rule changes that allowed amateur teams to poach more than (I believe) two players a season, they also took control at the service areas where kids/parents where told if they want their child to make the grade they would have to take  their child to team `A` or `B`, the result of this is evident by the severe drop in teams playing aged group rugby since this decision was made, if you start taking the best 4 or 5 kids from one team to send to a so called elite (normally a NCL Club) team your going to lose a lot of players from the game because this has made teams fold, instead of the drive to take the elite juniors at an early age the drive should have been to move into a condensed area such as the local schools and develop a local school competition, the Professional club could have provided the coaching and in doing so monitor all the kids before taking them at a set age into a higher competition, this way the numbers of players would be up, amateur teams may not be struggling and the clubs would have their elite players who they have been grooming throughout

[Lowdesert]

I'm not saying it's damaging to the kids. I'm saying that too many academies is damaging the sport in the NW. Proven by the chaos which was the NW amateur RL season at those age groups in recent years...

I haven't got recordings of the arguments between pro clubs and amateur sides (though I witnessed a number from both sides) but I'm sure the league minutes will record the issues.

As for the list of 'Academies' - that is a list of colleges in towns where ther are clubs with academies. Two of those arrangements listed I've been to and seen and another one of those arrangements I know very very well and I can tell you - it's not as you're describing it. It is a club and some of the academy players go to the education establishment listed - not even a majority. It's not a requirement for the academy player to go to the college at all and in reality the ones who are going to the college are the local lads who would have gone there anyway. The lads on the academy who live out of the town go in some cases, to the college where they live. The academies are not like those in premier football where players live, eat, sleep within an academy setting. You keep referring to them as 'facilities' as if they're the latter and they are not.

Mate, I've seen enough arguments to last a lifetime, neither am I suggesting all academy players have to go to the college that Clubs have associations or links with. Are you saying the list I've given you and the list that's on the RFL website is fabricated? A bit confused with your rant.

Before these arrangemts where offered, nothing was offered. Clubs aren't going to spend a fortune in time, effort and money when they can just form links with the college and fulfil the RFL audit, but at least it's a start. They aren't compelled to go to the relevant college, they can choose what they want. A lot of these lads wouldn't even go to college if this wasn't available.

[Lowdesert]

The RFL interfered with the amateur game with rule changes that allowed amateur teams to poach more than (I believe) two players a season, they also took control at the service areas where kids/parents where told if they want their child to make the grade they would have to take  their child to team `A` or `B`, the result of this is evident by the severe drop in teams playing aged group rugby since this decision was made, if you start taking the best 4 or 5 kids from one team to send to a so called elite (normally a NCL Club) team your going to lose a lot of players from the game because this has made teams fold, instead of the drive to take the elite juniors at an early age the drive should have been to move into a condensed area such as the local schools and develop a local school competition, the Professional club could have provided the coaching and in doing so monitor all the kids before taking them at a set age into a higher competition, this way the numbers of players would be up, amateur teams may not be struggling and the clubs would have their elite players who they have been grooming throughout

Some of this I agree with and for another thread. The RFL are putting the onus on Clubs to manage and fund their Academies in a way which suits that Club the best, within the RFL guidelines. Salford haven't done that well in putting effort in, barring this year. Their commitment has been poor and they have to shoulder the blame, not RFL.

[Philm]

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

Presumably there are players in recent seasons who have come through Salford's Academy into the first team.

[kiyan]

Did Salford not exist before he came along?

They did, but the reality is they were hours away from being no more and have only existed in SL since because of his cash.

Among his many promises he always said he would not be there for ever, but he wanted to leave the club able to pay for itself. Maybe this is one promise he will keep and needs to cut expenses before he leaves the sport.

There was a lot of talk about Sale owners buying Salford, but before the new owners of Sale stepped in the previous owner quietly wrote off £15m owed to him trimmed the club so it just about was breaking even.

He too had lost interest - does anyone else see a comparison?

If the Koukash goes RL will have lost someone willing to spend/waste a lot of their money because they love RL to be replaced with big business only wanting to make a profit.

if that comes about. 5 years from now alot of people will be wishing Marwan was back!

[mmp]

Mate, I've seen enough arguments to last a lifetime, neither am I suggesting all academy players have to go to the college that Clubs have associations or links with. Are you saying the list I've given you and the list that's on the RFL website is fabricated? A bit confused with your rant.

Before these arrangemts where offered, nothing was offered. Clubs aren't going to spend a fortune in time, effort and money when they can just form links with the college and fulfil the RFL audit, but at least it's a start. They aren't compelled to go to the relevant college, they can choose what they want. A lot of these lads wouldn't even go to college if this wasn't available.

 

 

I'm not ranting. And my point is nothing to do with the nature of the Academies.

 

My point is - as your list showed - there are too many Academies for the base of the pyramid that exists in the sport.  If there are only 500 players playing the game in the NW in what is the eligible age group (which is shocking in my view) then there cannot be any rationale for 5 academies covering the same geography.

[Lowdesert]

We are still waiting for confirmation that this 'story' from TRL is true.

[The Parksider]

It doesn't have to mirror what Worcester have done but the basis and mentality behind it. SL clubs should have development officers in areas outside their immediate vicinity to expand their pool as well as core audience. Not enough do this and are too lazy which is why minimum standards should be used

 

Well if Leeds did this I suppose they could put "development" officers in Harrogate, York, and all the way up the Aire valley to keighley, but again why would they put them in Bradford, Wakefield, Castleford and Huddersfield in the other directions.

 

As far as I know Leeds development policy is based on their "foundation" which other clubs have where the club and the game is actively promoted. Part of that is to get the kids coming to Headingley to play and I have seen York kids come and play as well as other teams from outside Leeds. Leeds encourage (but are not allowed to get involved in) local junior RL. They do go to schools and support Schools RL, my wife's school produced Jamie Broughton,

 

So I do think Leeds cast the net wide and suspect other big clubs who can afford the staff do the same. Asking Cas and Wakefield to employ Development officers may be a problem due to their serious financial difficulties, I think they do what they can.

 

I have not come across any "Laziness" though? Can you set out why you think they are all lazy?