Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

Just doing the bare minimum isn’t enough to qualify for the full Elite standard.  These clubs have been weakly audited for a number of years and none of it was based on actual players on the pitch until recently.  The evidence is there but it still doesn’t stop clubs from running an academy and proving a point.

If a club is going to be promoted they should have an infrastructure in place to develop players.  If a Club is promoted, let’s say Barrow Raiders, they should receive full central funding and have the a structure in place at the end of Year 1, to fulfil the requirements in year 2 onwards.  That’s not difficult.

You're describing a system that isn't in place and blaming clubs for not conforming to it. What foundation/infrastructure can clubs possibly put in place without permission to run an elite Academy? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

You're describing a system that isn't in place and blaming clubs for not conforming to it. What foundation/infrastructure can clubs possibly put in place without permission to run an elite Academy? 

Not blaming anyone, just stating the obvious. There are requirements in place for Elite standard.  That on itself forms the basis of a system.  How Clubs get to that standard is by forming their own system which must satisfy the Elite standard.

Edit:  I think the key thing here is the end product.  I’ve said it before on these academy threads that some clubs have put academy’s in place and have done the bare minimum.  They have then been audited by the RFL.  College is available, diversity, sustainability etc policies are there, schools interaction .   ... I could go on,but no pro player progression - which really should be the main objective and identified.  The objectives should satisfy the Standard requirements.

Edited by Lowdesert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Difficult to understand Bradford losing out. Their training infrastructure at Tong is of a high standard, the players they produce are also of a good standard. 

I had heard that SL were wanting a maximum of 2 non-SL academies to save cash but I (naively) thought the process would be open & transparent. 

Is it £100k per closed academy or unassigned license that can be fed back into the 12 SL back pockets per year?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

BRADFORD Bulls are incredibly shocked, disappointed and perplexed by this morning's decision not to grant the club an Elite Academy Licence.

We are struggling to understand any RFL strategy that apparently prevents young Bradford players playing for Bradford. The decision, if left to stand, is immensely damaging to the sport, the city and the welfare of 90 plus young players and staff. The club has not received any detailed feedback at this stage, so will be reserving our position until that is received, and we have a better understanding as to why the RFL believe an extremely productive line of young talent can be laid to waste.

 

Producing the likes of Burgess (x3), Whitehead, Bateman, Donaldson, O'Brien, Mellor, Wilson, Truman, Wardle etc etc obviously not sufficient proof of our value to the the game...

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, paulwalker71 said:

 

Producing the likes of Burgess (x3), Whitehead, Bateman, Donaldson, O'Brien, Mellor, Wilson, Truman, Wardle etc etc obviously not sufficient proof of our value to the the game...

The point is could they be produced elsewhere at a Full Time club in Super League meaning excess players who weren't going to make it weren't sucked out of the junior community game? 

Baring in mind Bradford aren't a "regional outpost academy" like London or Newcastle, and that 4 M62 based Super League clubs haven't been granted an elite license, I don't think its surprising at all.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really see any good news in this and get the impression that the RFL already knew who they wanted and the number of academies. If clubs want to have academies then they should be allowed to and its simply not fair, especially in a salary capped sport, to make some teams compete with one hand tied behind their backs by not letting them have academies. I'm not sure how teams are meant to have strength in depth and compete with the likes of Wigan, Saints et al who have countless players to call on earning peanuts to bulk up their squads.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Damien said:

I don't really see any good news in this and get the impression that the RFL already knew who they wanted and the number of academies. If clubs want to have academies then they should be allowed to and its simply not fair, especially in a salary capped sport, to make some teams compete with one hand tied behind their backs by not letting them have academies. I'm not sure how teams are meant to have strength in depth and compete with the likes of Wigan, Saints et al who have countless players to call on earning peanuts to bulk up their squads.

They can still have Academies but they've just not met the standard for Elite level. This is all about driving standards upwards, incentivising clubs to invest in off field setups, rather than just hand it on a plate to them

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

Not blaming anyone, just stating the obvious. There are requirements in place for Elite standard.  That on itself forms the basis of a system.  How Clubs get to that standard is by forming their own system which must satisfy the Elite standard.

Edit:  I think the key thing here is the end product.  I’ve said it before on these academy threads that some clubs have put academy’s in place and have done the bare minimum.  They have then been audited by the RFL.  College is available, diversity, sustainability etc policies are there, schools interaction .   ... I could go on,but no pro player progression - which really should be the main objective and identified.  The objectives should satisfy the Standard requirements.

But how can clubs like Cas/Hull Kr etc do a better job proving they can bring players through in 2024, when they will have spent 3 seasons not being allowed to run the system that enables them to do so? All it does is further hamstring those clubs.

All this decision does is further monopolise the top end of SL by giving the top clubs exclusive access to the best junior players. 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

I don't really see any good news in this and get the impression that the RFL already knew who they wanted and the number of academies. If clubs want to have academies then they should be allowed to and its simply not fair, especially in a salary capped sport, to make some teams compete with one hand tied behind their backs by not letting them have academies. I'm not sure how teams are meant to have strength in depth and compete with the likes of Wigan, Saints et al who have countless players to call on earning peanuts to bulk up their squads.

I agree that would be unfair, though I would retort that they can still run an academy, just not an RFL funded one.

The RFL's priority here has to be the best quality environment for Junior development whilst not dismantling the junior game. There are clearly rationalisations with both financial and playing resources being made here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DoubleD said:

They can still have Academies but they've just not met the standard for Elite level. This is all about driving standards upwards, incentivising clubs to invest in off field setups, rather than just hand it on a plate to them

I know, its far from the same and not even the same time of year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LeytherRob said:

But how can clubs like Cas/Hull Kr etc do a better job proving they can bring players through in 2024, when they will have spent 3 seasons not being allowed to run the system that enables them to do so? All it does is further hamstring those clubs.

All this decision does is further monopolise the top end of SL by giving the top clubs exclusive access to the best junior players. 

 

Category 3 College based academies can be one route. Additionally, they need to actually invest in facilities. Cas doing a lot with a little and earning it on the pitch is fine for the first team, but frankly its unfair for juniors.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

The point is could they be produced elsewhere at a Full Time club in Super League meaning excess players who weren't going to make it weren't sucked out of the junior community game? 

Baring in mind Bradford aren't a "regional outpost academy" like London or Newcastle, and that 4 M62 based Super League clubs haven't been granted an elite license, I don't think its surprising at all.

But they weren't produced elsewhere. They were produced - and, more importantly, still are being produced - in the Bulls Academy. 

I understand that your team are in for Ebon Scurr, our latest Academy star. If it's so easy for the other West Yorkshire clubs to produce these players, why weren't they? Apparently Leeds are 'his club', I'm sure he'd have jumped at the opportunity to be in the Leeds Academy if the chance had been offered...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tommygilf said:

I agree that would be unfair, though I would retort that they can still run an academy, just not an RFL funded one.

The RFL's priority here has to be the best quality environment for Junior development whilst not dismantling the junior game. There are clearly rationalisations with both financial and playing resources being made here.

Well don't fund any club academy then and don't pick and choose. Fund regional ones and be done with it and let clubs fund their own.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DoubleD said:

They can still have Academies but they've just not met the standard for Elite level. This is all about driving standards upwards, incentivising clubs to invest in off field setups, rather than just hand it on a plate to them

They can have cat 3 academies that are essentially just slapping a pro club name on the local college team. They play in a college league. A lot of clubs already did this anyway. Cat 3 academies are not about producing top players, the goal is to transition those that likely won't make it into education and qualifications to give them a profession outside of rugby. 

What are the off field setups you are referring to that clubs should be investing in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

They can have cat 3 academies that are essentially just slapping a pro club name on the local college team. They play in a college league. A lot of clubs already did this anyway. Cat 3 academies are not about producing top players, the goal is to transition those that likely won't make it into education and qualifications to give them a profession outside of rugby. 

What are the off field setups you are referring to that clubs should be investing in?

Have a look at the RFL guidelines for Academies, and what they're scored on

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I agree that would be unfair, though I would retort that they can still run an academy, just not an RFL funded one.

The RFL's priority here has to be the best quality environment for Junior development whilst not dismantling the junior game. There are clearly rationalisations with both financial and playing resources being made here.

Who would the academy play against? Are you suggesting clubs run their own unsanctioned competition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, paulwalker71 said:

But they weren't produced elsewhere. They were produced - and, more importantly, still are being produced - in the Bulls Academy. 

I understand that your team are in for Ebon Scurr, our latest Academy star. If it's so easy for the other West Yorkshire clubs to produce these players, why weren't they? Apparently Leeds are 'his club', I'm sure he'd have jumped at the opportunity to be in the Leeds Academy if the chance had been offered...

Because Bradford, like Cas and KR, can turn around and say come play for us.

This isn't a criticism of Bradford's academy, clearly there is some very good work going on there. From the RFLs perspective though, is it better that work goes into the full time top tier environment or into the second division? Bearing in mind they are funding these to a significant extent and there are clearly major budget pressures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LeytherRob said:

Who would the academy play against? Are you suggesting clubs run their own unsanctioned competition?

The Cat 3 academies have their own college league.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Damien said:

Well don't fund any club academy then and don't pick and choose. Fund regional ones and be done with it and let clubs fund their own.

This is great in theory but doesn't work in practice. The RFL have done similar to this before - they funded Midlands and Cumbria and it didn't work well - the RFL are not suited to running academies. You need clubs driving this and standards - they're incentivised (or should be) to create pathways to their first team, get players learning systems and structures at the club to ready themselves for first team footy. You can't do that at regional academies. 

And if you let clubs do their own thing, you get a free for all and weakening standards. 

It should be noted that the Premier League did a similar process recently with their academies to drive standards

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tommygilf said:

The Cat 3 academies have their own college league.

 

6 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

They can have cat 3 academies that are essentially just slapping a pro club name on the local college team. They play in a college league. A lot of clubs already did this anyway. Cat 3 academies are not about producing top players, the goal is to transition those that likely won't make it into education and qualifications to give them a profession outside of rugby.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Damien said:

Well don't fund any club academy then and don't pick and choose. Fund regional ones and be done with it and let clubs fund their own.

I don't totally disagree, I'd not go near junior rugby at all till 18. 

But as budgets are tight they can't afford to set up regional academies. So they have to license them out to clubs. 3 Lancs, 3 W. Yorks, 1 East Yorks, 1 NE, 1 London.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Glensider changed the title to RL decision on Academies
  • John Drake changed the title to Academy Licensing (2022 - 27) - (Merged threads)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...