Academy Licensing (2022 - 27) - (Merged threads)

[LeytherRob]

1 minute ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Salford like Widnes dropped their academy's as even with RFL funding it didnt make economic sense, rarely developing players for the first team as they had 4th or 5th choice of community players.

Widnes dropped their Academy last year because they knew they wouldn't have their Academy licence renewed when it expired this year. 

Salfords academy license was revoked as it failed to meet standards. Google is your friend here...

https://www.mancunianmatters.co.uk/sport/04092015-another-blow-for-rugby-league-in-manchester-as-salford-red-devils-academy-falls-short-of-category-1/

[GUBRATS]

13 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

We don't know what the criteria was for awarding the final 2 academies, only that multiple clubs have been given geographical proximity as direct feedback for the failure of their bids. If that is the case, then the critical misunderstanding here is people assuming it is purely down to quality that some clubs have been rejected. Take Leigh or Salford for instance, if the board has taken the opinion that the 3 academies at Wigan, Wire and Saints is enough to serve the NW then it doesn't really matter how good or bad their bids were. There is precisely zero chance that any of those 3 clubs would be stripped of an academy right now.

Which then begs the question , why didn't the RFL just tell Leigh and Salford that 3 is the number and those spots are filled , end of 

[Harry Stottle]

23 hours ago, LeytherRob said:

How many players do you think will get to SL through a local college league?

 

22 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Considering the standard of that competition is likely to go up as a direct result of this, then probably a fair few. 

Once upon a time if a pro club signed on a player from an amatuer club it was expected and a done procedure for the pro club to make a payment to the amatuer club.

Now I am sure there are going to be in the Cat 3 teams player's who have been missed or are late developers that will be enticed along to one of the chosen clubs who has been given £100K to bring players through to SL standard, would it not be right and fitting that any player going from a Cat 3 to a Licenced Funded Academy is paid a transfer fee by the latter.

[David Dockhouse Host]

2 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

Widnes dropped their Academy last year because they knew they wouldn't have their Academy licence renewed when it expired this year. 

Salfords academy license was revoked as it failed to meet standards. Google is your friend here...

https://www.mancunianmatters.co.uk/sport/04092015-another-blow-for-rugby-league-in-manchester-as-salford-red-devils-academy-falls-short-of-category-1/

Widnes couldn't have know that and it wasn't the reason given at the time.

Salford could have made improvements but chose not too.

In both cases choice was available, they chose it wasn't worth it, the reasons are largely the ones I've stated and partly why license system is being used. As I say I feel sorry for clubs missing out but the reasons are based on sound rationale. 

[David Dockhouse Host]

2 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

 

Once upon a time if a pro club signed on a player from an amatuer club it was expected and a done procedure for the pro club to make a payment to the amatuer club.

Now I am sure there are going to be in the Cat 3 teams player's who have been missed or are late developers that will be enticed along to one of the chosen clubs who has been given £100K to bring players through to SL standard, would it not be right and fitting that any player going from a Cat 3 to a Licenced Funded Academy is paid a transfer fee by the latter.

They already do although it's very small

[LeytherRob]

6 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Widnes couldn't have know that and it wasn't the reason given at the time.

Salford could have made improvements but chose not too.

In both cases choice was available, they chose it wasn't worth it, the reasons are largely the ones I've stated and partly why license system is being used. As I say I feel sorry for clubs missing out but the reasons are based on sound rationale. 

This is not the first license period for academies, I really don't know how else to say it. If you don't believe me, have a quick Google or look at the RFLs own website.

[David Dockhouse Host]

6 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

This is not the first license period for academies, I really don't know how else to say it. If you don't believe me, have a quick Google or look at the RFLs own website.

I'm aware of the previous accreditation but nothing like the 2022 license system we are discussing.

[Spidey]

32 minutes ago, TrueBull said:

I think Bradford are 4th for academy players in SL and NRL over the last 20 years. Bit harsh sacking the Bradford academy because they weren’t top 3. Raising standards can’t be the Bradford reason

How many in the last academy licence period though? I guess that’s the most relevant in this process 

[Spidey]

26 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Widnes couldn't have know that and it wasn't the reason given at the time.

Salford could have made improvements but chose not too.

In both cases choice was available, they chose it wasn't worth it, the reasons are largely the ones I've stated and partly why license system is being used. As I say I feel sorry for clubs missing out but the reasons are based on sound rationale. 

Widnes could have saw the writing on the wall I guess

[David Dockhouse Host]

4 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Widnes could have saw the writing on the wall I guess

They were classed as outstanding and were very good, although administration had an impact.

Ultimately the resource costs outweigh the benefits. Yes they knew lisencing was up at the end of the year but could have at least continued this year if it made economic sense. Such a shame that a great academy has fallen but maybe this shows the funds and players are not there for so many academies 

 

[LeytherRob]

42 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

I'm aware of the previous accreditation but nothing like the 2022 license system we are discussing.

The last licensing cycle ends this year, it's no different to this new license system, except that they've opted to reduce the numbers from 14 to 10. Its been licensing for years now. If you still want to argue that fact, despite all the proof available to you, then I can't help you.

[David Dockhouse Host]

1 minute ago, LeytherRob said:

The last licensing cycle ends this year, it's no different to this new license system, except that they've opted to reduce the numbers from 14 to 10. Its been licensing for years now. If you still want to argue that fact, despite all the proof available to you, then I can't help you.

I haven't argued anything? I've said I don't see it as being exactly the same, seems quite different this time.

[David Dockhouse Host]

Did Leigh apply last time?

[del capo]

1 hour ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

This whole perspective naively ignores how incentives work. All SL clubs bar Leeds operate with huge deficits, funded by owners. Those owners continue to invest in scholarship and academy programmes because of the potential pathway to talent for the first team. If you break that incentive link, by making it inevitable their best developed youth will leave the club at 16 or 18, then that investment is futile and it will stop.
 

The net result of this strategy will be to remove £millions from community investment, at a time when we need every single £ we can get. Instead of thinking somebody’s drone expertise was a relevant value-add to the panel, maybe we’d be better of with an economist who understands market development, supply and demand. 
 

I think you under estimate the RFL.

Your  ' drone ' man Deano is a logistics expert running 3000+ personnel from an airbase in Lincolnshire. I doubt he flies the drones himself but I believe he was once part of the Red Arrows.

Similarly Sandy Lindsay who chairs the Community Board is in another life a marketing guru. For me these are the sort of people who come with ' value add on ' .

The naivety in the whole Academy project is that of the owners. They found a working recruitment system in the amateur game and broke it at vast cost instead of nurturing the plants. For selfish reasons that have not in reality produced a cheaper product but an all consuming devastation.

Talent pathways never meant that you had to take it all in house ,  as the better Foundations now realise by seeking to re integrate with the Community game.

And of course the free money is rapidly drying up.....

[robertclark125]

On 21/05/2021 at 13:02, Tommygilf said:

So that leaves us with 9 English academies. 

3 in West Yorkshire.

3 in "Lancashire". 

1 in the East Riding of Yorkshire.

1 in London & SE.

1 in the North East.

Its a rationalisation that has been coming for a while now. Unsurprisingly its very similar to the original Super League proposals.

If the RFL's rationale is based, partly on geography, why not have 1 in the south west, one in the midlands? Yes, I know there are no top flight or second tier clubs in those areas, yet, but I'm sure there's plenty of talent. Why does west yorkshire need 3, and the Midlands get zilch?

[David Dockhouse Host]

2 minutes ago, robertclark125 said:

If the RFL's rationale is based, partly on geography, why not have 1 in the south west, one in the midlands? Yes, I know there are no top flight or second tier clubs in those areas, yet, but I'm sure there's plenty of talent. Why does west yorkshire need 3, and the Midlands get zilch?

They don't have the same level of community game to service a full academy, I suspect this would play a large part in this decision 

[del capo]

3 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

They don't have the same level of community game to service a full academy, I suspect this would play a large part in this decision 

The RFL ran once ran Academies directly in Cumbria and the Midlands , but geography and / or lack of material from the community game saw their demise.

[LeytherRob]

29 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

I haven't argued anything? I've said I don't see it as being exactly the same, seems quite different this time.

You've consistently suggested that the teams without academies haven't done so because of a lack of desire, which is just demonstrably false. In any case, despite being presented with actual evidence which contradicts those assumptions, you've ploughed on undeterred so I think I'll leave it there. If you have any other daft questions, I suggest you at least do a quick Google before making yourself look daft.

[dkw]

7 minutes ago, del capo said:

The RFL ran once ran Academies directly in Cumbria and the Midlands , but geography and / or lack of material from the community game saw their demise.

In Cumbria thats not the only reasons for its demise at all, If by material you mean player base then its definitely is not the reason. 

[David Dockhouse Host]

1 minute ago, LeytherRob said:

You've consistently suggested that the teams without academies haven't done so because of a lack of desire, which is just demonstrably false. In any case, despite being presented with actual evidence which contradicts those assumptions, you've ploughed on undeterred so I think I'll leave it there. If you have any other daft questions, I suggest you at least do a quick Google before making yourself look daft.

I never used the words 'lack of desire' but did try to show that they saw the input (money, time, etc.) disproportionate to the benefits. I've also given reasons why(4th 5th choice of community players etc.) I'm happy to be proved wrong and happy to debate these things, after all this is how we raise awareness and understanding. I've listened to other views and happy to confirm I've learnt from this thread.

I've shared the reasoning behind these decisions, others have also added interesting insights, the impact on the community game being one.

Did Leigh apply last time for an Academy lisence? 

[del capo]

4 minutes ago, dkw said:

In Cumbria thats not the only reasons for its demise at all, If by material you mean player base then its definitely is not the reason. 

I think it was a case of geography money and organisation. You Marras have always produced talent through your local clubs - isn't RL the national sport ( according to the Tourist Board ) up there ?

[David Dockhouse Host]

4 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Interesting that on this thread we have several posters now agreeing with the reasons I gave when defending Leigh's lack of having a cat 1 academy in the past , and it would seem the RFL agree that just dragging players out of the community game to ' pad out ' squads is not a good idea 

Common sense at last , hopefully we won't see any more idiots having a pop at clubs for not having an academy due to their lack of knowledge of the subject 

I could assume but thought I'd ask, what were your reasons for defending Leigh's lack of Academy in the past?

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

32 minutes ago, del capo said:

I think you under estimate the RFL.

Your  ' drone ' man Deano is a logistics expert running 3000+ personnel from an airbase in Lincolnshire. I doubt he flies the drones himself but I believe he was once part of the Red Arrows.

Similarly Sandy Lindsay who chairs the Community Board is in another life a marketing guru. For me these are the sort of people who come with ' value add on ' .

The naivety in the whole Academy project is that of the owners. They found a working recruitment system in the amateur game and broke it at vast cost instead of nurturing the plants. For selfish reasons that have not in reality produced a cheaper product but an all consuming devastation.

Talent pathways never meant that you had to take it all in house ,  as the better Foundations now realise by seeking to re integrate with the Community game.

And of course the free money is rapidly drying up.....

The solution does not address that problem in the other 9 clubs - so what’s your point?

You either run a centralised combine system with draft, a farm system integrated on top of the community game, or a free-market academy system. Each has their advantages and disadvantages, the first two addressing your community game concerns. What you can’t rationally do in a competitive talent market is allow 9 of the 12 elite sides to run an advantaged talent pathway in the free-market model, whilst barring the other 3 from doing so.

 

It’s not rocket science, or drone science for that matter 

 

 

[Hull Kingston Bronco]

4 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

 

 

 

Double post 

[David Dockhouse Host]

3 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

The solution does not address that problem in the other 9 clubs - so what’s your point?

You either run a centralised combine system with draft, a farm system integrated on top of the community game, or a free-market academy system. Each has their advantages and disadvantages, the first two addressing your community game concerns. What you can’t rationally do in a competitive talent market is allow 9 of the 12 elite sides to run an advantaged talent pathway in the free-market model, whilst barring the other 3 from doing so.

 

It’s not rocket science, or drone science for that matter 

 

 

This is a very good point against recent changes.

Couple of thoughts, teams can still sign players on full time contracts without an academy, and they can recruit from other academies, taking advantage of another clubs hard work. Each of those things happen now but again I do agree with your point.

What the ultimate solution then? Draft system, regional Academies, centrally funded academies? All got potential, but have their own barriers