Academies (and the closure of Widnes’).

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

I don't see any contradiction in the following statements:

If you're in Super League you should run an academy.

Any club should be able to establish an academy if they wish (Cat 1 or Cat 3).

The RFL should direct funding to academies in strategic areas not covered by Super League.

The RFL spending money on second division heartland academies is a waste of resources unless they are specifically designated regional (outside the M62) academies using the club as a hub. IE, Widnes for Wales or Cumbria.

Stick that on a manifesto and you'd get my vote.

[The Future is League]

15 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

Some Championship clubs wanted to run academies but were prevented from doing so by the RFL.

And that is very wrong and utterly stupid by the the RFL, who i have very little faith in nowadays due to quite a few of their actions and lack of actions in some cases in recent years

[Tommygilf]

Being selective on who can run academies is not an RFL or Super League specific "anti-championship agenda" either. Its a simple recognition of reality that is true in football for example too (Leeds United were only last summer able to compete in the top two tiers of academy football whilst Championship and the odd League 1 clubs have been doing so since its inception because facilities weren't up to standard).

You want the top academies, with the best facilities and resources competing against eachother in an elite environment. That's true from a club, league and RFL/England perspective.

That does not give any random Championship club the automatic right to say we want to set up an academy and "it must be playing St Helens and Wigan's straight away, oh and we want £100 grand of extra funding for the privilege because mentally we think we're a Super League club in waiting". The only way that could conceivably happen is if a club makes itself a regional hub for an area not currently covered well/at all by Super League. Lateral thinking and all that.

Arguably it could be time for 2 divisions in the academy league if enough heartland Championship sides wanted to set up their own (unfunded) academies.

[Tommygilf]

12 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Stick that on a manifesto and you'd get my vote.

Thank you, I'm launching my campaign next week.

[Tommygilf]

24 minutes ago, The Future is League said:

And that is very wrong and utterly stupid by the the RFL, who i have very little faith in nowadays due to quite a few of their actions and lack of actions in some cases in recent years

Tbf if they were insisting on funding coming with that as a condition of running an academy its not too stupid. If they were wanting to run it entirely off their own back then fair enough!

[The storm]

On 19/02/2021 at 09:56, Eddie said:

I was listening to the latest Widnes Chat Podcast this morning (a really interesting hour and a half interview with their CEO) and the first half hour or so was about why they’ve had to close their academy. Considering how many players they have churned out (all but two SL teams have a first team player who hasn’t come through their system apparently) it makes sad listening. 
 

I know SL is about the SL clubs only, and they might argue why should they give an academy at a Championship club £100k a year to run, but given how many players come through that pathway, and how the player pool is shrinking, it seems shortsighted of the English game in general to have let it happen. Particularly when not all SL clubs have an academy themselves, and don’t produce players like Widnes do. 
 

It’s worth a listen anyway. 

Its very much a backwards move but unfortunately there are few wealthy men or women on the widnes board at the moment. 

The big clubs have owners who can put £500,000 or more into the club, but currently widnes don't have that. 

However these are dedicated and honourable people running the club at this time and hopefully guiding us through difficult circumstances 

[steve oates]

6 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Being selective on who can run academies is not an RFL or Super League specific "anti-championship agenda" either. Its a simple recognition of reality that You want the top academies, with the best facilities and resources competing against eachother in an elite environment. 

That does not give any (random) Championship club the automatic right to say we want to set up an academy

I agree. It's only about 6-7 miles from Widnes to Warrington, Leigh to Wigan or Cas to Wakefield. Only about 1 in 100 and odd kids make it or something like that, it's pointless making clubs open academies when there's enough academies already to pick up the best kids. 

In answer to a query I think academies were compulsory for the first time we had licensing but since then  it's been relaxed for the reasons above??

 

[Tommygilf]

5 minutes ago, steve oates said:

I agree. It's only about 6-7 miles from Widnes to Warrington, Leigh to Wigan or Cas to Wakefield. Only about 1 in 100 and odd kids make it or something like that, it's pointless making clubs open academies when there's enough academies already to pick up the best kids. 

In answer to a query I think academies were compulsory for the first time we had licensing but since then  it's been relaxed for the reasons above??

I honestly don't know why it has been relaxed.

I can understand certain Championship clubs saying "look at our near neighbours, what's the point in running an academy", as I understand why the RFL would choose not to fund that either, but for fully professional Super League sides its totally unacceptable imo. They have access to the professional resources to make an academy work and the full time administration team to support that. If they don't, then they shouldn't be in the league.

[steve oates]

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I honestly don't know why it has been relaxed.

I can understand certain Championship clubs saying "look at our near neighbours, what's the point in running an academy", as I understand why the RFL would choose not to fund that either, but for fully professional Super League sides its totally unacceptable imo. They have access to the professional resources to make an academy work and the full time administration team to support that. If they don't, then they shouldn't be in the league.

The academy closed at Salford and stayed closed because no wealthy backer came in. It was shut possibly on the basis it wasn't productive. I am not sure how much junior RL there is in salford, certainly nowhere near the amount in Castleford, Fev and Wakey which feeds two academies. 

If there is P & R where the club going up has to have an academy it cant work - that promoted club could easily go back down eithin a year. If it was licensing you could insist on an academy but what is the point of two in Hull?

What do you think??

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, steve oates said:

The academy closed at Salford and stayed closed because no wealthy backer came in. It was shut possibly on the basis it wasn't productive. I am not sure how much junior RL there is in salford, certainly nowhere near the amount in Castleford, Fev and Wakey which feeds two academies. 

If there is P & R where the club going up has to have an academy it cant work - that promoted club could easily go back down eithin a year. If it was licensing you could insist on an academy but what is the point of two in Hull?

What do you think??

I accept for promoted clubs setting up an academy overnight isn't possible. That said the vast majority of promoted clubs basis for arguing there should be promotion and relegation is that they are equivalent to super league clubs - with regards to academies particularly I think this quite clearly falls down for most.

On the availability of youth players I think this largely comes down to the clubs that complain most vociferously thinking in a very tunnel visioned fashion. That is to say, they (artificially) restrict themselves by defining their capacity for youth development by their geographic proximity to other competitor clubs. If the club is running a youth academy, then it is the club's academy, not the "spitting distance from the club" academy or service area team. Instead of seeing it as representative of Leeds, Hull x2, Wakefield x2, Kirklees, Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Cheshire and Perpignan, see it as 10 Super League academies who happen to be located in these places. Just because Hull KR and Hull FC share the city of Hull doesn't mean ALL their academy players have to come from there. To take a prime example of Leeds' golden generation academy products, 2 of the leading lights, Burrow and Sinfield, were from Wakefield (postcode) and Oldham respectively. Leeds have always looked at Cumbria too, see Brad Singleton and Kyle Amor. Saints have made strides recruiting youth from Wales.

The basic principle from that is, if competition for youth on your doorstep is high, cast your net wider don't throw the towel in. Lateral thinking is necessary. In direct response to your point, if there isn't much junior RL in Salford, look somewhere else! Complaining about the short term costs of this is a result of long term neglect.

Geography does play somewhat of a part of course, but clubs should not let it be the defining factor for their academies if the players are good enough. Otherwise the question naturally will arise as to whether there should be a Super League club there at all.

There's also an element of defeatist thinking, for example several Leigh fans "what's the point" mentality contrasts massively with say Fev being most determined championship side to have an academy team.

[Oxford]

8 hours ago, Davo5 said:

Some Championship clubs wanted to run academies but were prevented from doing so by the RFL.

How do you know this? It sounds illogical but stupid enough to be true but apart from here I've never seen this reported anywhere.

 

44 minutes ago, steve oates said:

If there is P & R where the club going up has to have an academy it cant work

Again has this been said, written, reported anywhere as likely?

[Tommygilf]

15 minutes ago, Oxford said:

How do you know this? It sounds illogical but stupid enough to be true but apart from here I've never seen this reported anywhere.

 

Again has this been said, written, reported anywhere as likely?

Fev were told they couldn't continue to run an academy as the RFL saw it as only worthwhile funding Super League and the odd regional hub like Newcastle academy teams. The critical point here being that all the academies are in the same league and receive funding from the RFL to do so.

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

2 hours ago, steve oates said:

I agree. It's only about 6-7 miles from Widnes to Warrington, Leigh to Wigan or Cas to Wakefield. Only about 1 in 100 and odd kids make it or something like that, it's pointless making clubs open academies when there's enough academies already to pick up the best kids. 

In answer to a query I think academies were compulsory for the first time we had licensing but since then  it's been relaxed for the reasons above??

 

If two clubs are too close together to both have Academy teams, surely they are also too close together to both be Super League teams. 

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

If two clubs are too close together to both have Academy teams, surely they are also too close together to both be Super League teams. 

That is the natural progression of that logic

[Oxford]

1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

Fev were told they couldn't continue to run an academy as the RFL saw it as only worthwhile funding Super League and the odd regional hub like Newcastle academy teams. The critical point here being that all the academies are in the same league and receive funding from the RFL to do so.

Thanks for the response Tommy.

So is it about funding or are there other hidden reasons?

[yipyee]

On 19/02/2021 at 17:39, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

I’d love to see the statistics on how many Super League and Championship have come from each academy. I am certain Leeds would come out on top, they produce more players than anyone else. Wigan would be 2nd and Saints 3rd. The rest of the game in the UK is far too reliant on those 3 clubs. 

Saints third ay, 

Think they might be top?

[Tommygilf]

17 hours ago, Oxford said:

Thanks for the response Tommy.

So is it about funding or are there other hidden reasons?

Well they won't fund an inferior (and arguably superfluous) system which is fair enough imo. Its a bit more of a grey area whereby a non RFL funded academy can be in the elite tier of the academy system.

However, I do disagree with the stance that only RFL funded academies can play. I see no reason why the championship clubs, either on their own or alongside the college shared Cat3 academies, cannot operated in another tier of academies if they want to run them. In fact I think it would give some clubs an ideal platform to establish their credentials as fully professional outfits.

I would also disagree with a heartland championship club claiming it was "unfair" or otherwise that they weren't getting circa £100k to run an academy.

[Eddie]

19 hours ago, steve oates said:

The academy closed at Salford and stayed closed because no wealthy backer came in. It was shut possibly on the basis it wasn't productive. I am not sure how much junior RL there is in salford, certainly nowhere near the amount in Castleford, Fev and Wakey which feeds two academies. 

If there is P & R where the club going up has to have an academy it cant work - that promoted club could easily go back down eithin a year. If it was licensing you could insist on an academy but what is the point of two in Hull?

What do you think??

Why not have two in Hull, if they have enough lads wanting to play. It’s like saying why have two football Academies in Liverpool. 

[Damien]

Just now, Eddie said:

Why not have two in Hull, if they have enough lads wanting to play. It’s like saying why have two football Academies in Liverpool. 

If Hull is big enough to have two Super League clubs then it is big enough to have two academies. If both teams are worthy of a SL spot then they both should be producing players.

[Tommygilf]

58 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Why not have two in Hull, if they have enough lads wanting to play. It’s like saying why have two football Academies in Liverpool. 

 

56 minutes ago, Damien said:

If Hull is big enough to have two Super League clubs then it is big enough to have two academies. If both teams are worthy of a SL spot then they both should be producing players.

The location is only as much of a restriction as you make it. It should be a base to look out from, not a weight you are tied down to.

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

5 hours ago, Damien said:

If Hull is big enough to have two Super League clubs then it is big enough to have two academies. If both teams are worthy of a SL spot then they both should be producing players.

This is very true. There also isn’t another club within a 50 miles radius of the 2 Hull clubs, they probably have the biggest catchment area of any academy.

[Tommygilf]

48 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

This is very true. There also isn’t another club within a 50 miles radius of the 2 Hull clubs, they probably have the biggest catchment area of any academy.

Lets be real here there's not all that much in that 50 mile radius, half of it is the North Sea, a quarter is the thinly populated East Riding of Yorkshire and the final quarter is Lincolnshire.

The Hull clubs need, as everyone does, to look OUTSIDE their immediate vicinity.