Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, OriginalMrC said:
At some point in any discussion about RL someone will start to blame 'expansion'. Its inevitable 😂

 

 

 

Yup. As surely as night follows day.

  • Like 1

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


20 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

There’s no cannibalisation, that’s a totally specious argument. Demand (or activity to stimulate demand) creates its own supply... the strategic challenge is to get more kids playing the game, ie upstream, not how to share the current playing base out midstream. The RFL should focus its efforts there - and community investment in development programmes by Hull KR, at a level they haven’t previously been able afford to do, is part of that solution in Hull.

 

That’s why the local clubs back Rovers’ position in this, and with all due respect mate I reckon they know more about the local landscape than a London fan with a “bloomin’ heartlands” chip on his shoulder 

I'll ignore your condescending last comment.

The problem is you're combining two different things - getting more kids playing the game, and turning the players we have got into elite athletes. If you only have 100 16 year olds playing RL then you're only going to get 1 or 2 SL players out of them, anything beyond that is not realistic. If you have 500 16 year olds playing RL in Hull then you might be in a position to look again at a second academy - and that is where the clubs (all clubs) need to be spending their time, getting more kids playing RL in the first place. A 10-year old doesn't start playing RL because X team has an academy, he has no knowledge or interest in the game's elite development structure, he does it because someone (a parent, teacher, friend, club/RFL development officer) introduces him to the game. We need more of those before we can have more academies.

Just by way of contrast, Penrith District RL (the biggest junior district in NSW) has 10,000 registered juniors. That's where we are really behind the Aussies.

  • Like 3

"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."

Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Ralph Rimmer has come out and said about the licencing just proves how out of touch the people who run rugby league are.

 On Sky sports Terry O' Connor said that the kids would find it gut-wrenching. Rimmers response;

"Kids are crying when they’re rejected from academies at this moment in time. There are roughly 30 pro contracts given throughout Super League to academy players. So we get kids cry when those dreams are snatched from them anyway." 

So in his mind because not all academy players play in Super League and their dream ends there, there is no problem ending it sooner.

Well i can think of a few reasons, leaving aside the impact that will have in a young player, at club level the results could be disastrous. Clubs not having elite licenses could find young talent falling into the hands of neighboring clubs, this could greatly impact the quality of the game especial now when it seems we are trying to keep up wit the NRL. And every player that does not make it in Super League may make it in the Championship of League One the truckle-down of players could be lost if clubs are not granted adequate licences. At international level this could also be a problem, as every young talent that is not trained in an academy, that is not given the chance at top-level, is denied the opportunity to play for their country. We cannot allow the England squad of tomorrow to be lost today.

But this again demonstrates a wider issue. With the the Rugby League World Cup being hosted by us this year, this decision to not allow clubs like Castleford and Bradford who have a history of quality academics the licences that reflect this shows the short-sightedness of a CEO who looks to the future but can not see the problems right in front of him.

Edited by The Lad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, nadera78 said:

I'll ignore your condescending last comment.

The problem is you're combining two different things - getting more kids playing the game, and turning the players we have got into elite athletes. If you only have 100 16 year olds playing RL then you're only going to get 1 or 2 SL players out of them, anything beyond that is not realistic. If you have 500 16 year olds playing RL in Hull then you might be in a position to look again at a second academy - and that is where the clubs (all clubs) need to be spending their time, getting more kids playing RL in the first place. A 10-year old doesn't start playing RL because X team has an academy, he has no knowledge or interest in the game's elite development structure, he does it because someone (a parent, teacher, friend, club/RFL development officer) introduces him to the game. We need more of those before we can have more academies.

Just by way of contrast, Penrith District RL (the biggest junior district in NSW) has 10,000 registered juniors. That's where we are really behind the Aussies.

The comment was well earned, over many years 

 

If Penrith’s the benchmark then Leeds fail. If the strategy was to protect the community game from “crowding out” then they’d change the structure to address all teams, not just a limited number. If it was about particular local market penetration then there are smaller geo markets than Hull with more than one team’s academy in, they just don’t happen to share the same prefix in the name. 
 

The lesson from Penrith is that you win when you encourage professional sides to actively invest in the local market development of youngsters. Barring a small number of clubs from running elite academies that are able to compete with other academy sides does not encourage those pro clubs to do that - the opposite.

 

All of that is to argue the strategy on its own logic, and demonstrate it fails on its own stated objectives. But as well as that, how about competition integrity? On what planet is allowing only some clubs in a competition to run an elite talent development programme doing that? We know the answer 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

The comment was well earned, over many years 

 

If Penrith’s the benchmark then Leeds fail. If the strategy was to protect the community game from “crowding out” then they’d change the structure to address all teams, not just a limited number. If it was about particular local market penetration then there are smaller geo markets than Hull with more than one team’s academy in, they just don’t happen to share the same prefix in the name. 
 

The lesson from Penrith is that you win when you encourage professional sides to actively invest in the local market development of youngsters. Barring a small number of clubs from running elite academies that are able to compete with other academy sides does not encourage those pro clubs to do that - the opposite.

 

All of that is to argue the strategy on its own logic, and demonstrate it fails on its own stated objectives. But as well as that, how about competition integrity? On what planet is allowing only some clubs in a competition to run an elite talent development programme doing that? We know the answer 

That is not the lesson from Penrith at all.

Penrith are only good now because they spent the best part of the past 15 years investing in RL in their area, for most of that period the 1st Grade side has been pretty average if anything.

And quite clearly everyone else in NSW, let alone England, would fail if Penrith was the benchmark, they are the largest, clearly they should be the aim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

There’s no cannibalisation, that’s a totally specious argument. Demand (or activity to stimulate demand) creates its own supply... the strategic challenge is to get more kids playing the game, ie upstream, not how to share the current playing base out midstream. The RFL should focus its efforts there - and community investment in development programmes by Hull KR, at a level they haven’t previously been able afford to do, is part of that solution in Hull.

 

That’s why the local clubs back Rovers’ position in this, and with all due respect mate I reckon they know more about the local landscape than a London fan with a “bloomin’ heartlands” chip on his shoulder 

Every Christmas the next sort after toy is difficult to get hold of as production is kept low enough to create demand as people become more desperate for the product.

Less opportunities stimulates demand as it's reward is more sort after. Players will work harder and appreciate an academy contract more if fewer positions are available.

If it's simply a case of more academies leads to more community players, we could double academies and therefore kids playing would also double, but this we pretty sure wouldn't happen.

IME the community game has complained about scholarships and Academys as they impact negatively the playing numbers.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have them but currently the impact is out of balance and this aims to correct that. Maybe they could have done it differently though 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

Firstly, you’re incorrect. However regardless, it’s the Hull KR owners choice whether he wants to invest those resources or not at present - hardly any RFL funds are involved. Why prevent him? That’s a net gain of funds and effort into the community game if he does 

Do you mean invest in an academy ? , Or invest in the community game ? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Lad said:

What Ralph Rimmer has come out and said about the licencing just proves how out of touch the people who run rugby league are.

 On Sky sports Terry O' Connor said that the kids would find it gut-wrenching. Rimmers response;

"Kids are crying when they’re rejected from academies at this moment in time. There are roughly 30 pro contracts given throughout Super League to academy players. So we get kids cry when those dreams are snatched from them anyway." 

So in his mind because not all academy players play in Super League and their dream ends there, there is no problem ending it sooner.

Well i can think of a few reasons, leaving aside the impact that will have in a young player, at club level the results could be disastrous. Clubs not having elite licenses could find young talent falling into the hands of neighboring clubs, this could greatly impact the quality of the game especial now when it seems we are trying to keep up wit the NRL. And every player that does not make it in Super League may make it in the Championship of League One the truckle-down of players could be lost if clubs are not granted adequate licences. At international level this could also be a problem, as every young talent that is not trained in an academy, that is not given the chance at top-level, is denied the opportunity to play for their country. We cannot allow the England squad of tomorrow to be lost today.

But this again demonstrates a wider issue. With the the Rugby League World Cup being hosted by us this year, this decision to not allow clubs like Castleford and Bradford who have a history of quality academics the licences that reflect this shows the short-sightedness of a CEO who looks to the future but can not see the problems right in front of him.

Basically , no , essentially all of your post is , well , rubbish , as Mr Rimmer said , approx 30 contracts given out per year , we don't need to drag another 50-100 kids into the academy system just to make up enough numbers or to appease club owners 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hull Kingston Bronco said:

 

The lesson from Penrith is that you win when you encourage professional sides to actively invest in the local market development of youngsters. Barring a small number of clubs from running elite academies that are able to compete with other academy sides does not encourage those pro clubs to do that - the opposite.

 

Why ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:

Brian Barwick? Good to see people are reading and understanding what they are signing. 

Yes, that made me chuckle as well.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might get berated for this but what's wrong with having regional/joint academies as the elite with college based tier 2 academies for individual clubs underneath and a college league underneath that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no axe to grind with Hull kr but one of the Elite academy requirement was sustainability proportionate to the community game.  

Right now, Hull FC have 40 U18s and HKR might have a similar amount.  Based on the current H&D community league and that each club has exactly 13 players (base line) there are only 91 unassociated U18s in the Comminity game. If we apply the same baseline the U15/16s have circa 143 players.    

These numbers are definitely improving inHull & District (42% since 2018) so work has definitely been done and I’m sure a lot of that has been down to HKR but this isn’t a model for success. It must just be that Hull are actually delivering better than HKR.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GUBRATS said:

Basically , no , essentially all of your post is , well , rubbish , as Mr Rimmer said , approx 30 contracts given out per year , we don't need to drag another 50-100 kids into the academy system just to make up enough numbers or to appease club owners 

Still doesn't change the fact that those kids could go to Championship clubs. It also doesn't change the fact that less kids in academy means less players, less chances to find talent. How is casting a big net to find kids who can represent a club or even country appeasing owners?.  I think you will find its Rimmer who is talking rubbish just ask Rob Burrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

That is not the lesson from Penrith at all.

Penrith are only good now because they spent the best part of the past 15 years investing in RL in their area, for most of that period the 1st Grade side has been pretty average if anything.

And quite clearly everyone else in NSW, let alone England, would fail if Penrith was the benchmark, they are the largest, clearly they should be the aim.

That’s exactly what I said about the lesson from Penrith. They have invested heavily in youth development, and both they and the game are now the beneficiaries. Not sure where we differ on this?

 

Now, let’s float a hypothetical: Would the Panthers have spent that decade investing in youth development and community engagement if they’d been barred from entering the Under 20’s NRL comp, with Parra having the western Sydney licence?

 

I’m really struggling to see why people can’t connect the dots here. Footy clubs are commercial entities with a bottom line, they will not do things over the long term that cost them money and show no possible upside for the core business which is winning top-grade matches. Even less so if they invest in the talent pipeline with the likelihood that kids incubated within it will switch to a competitor up the road at 18! A club would be mad to do so 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Every Christmas the next sort after toy is difficult to get hold of as production is kept low enough to create demand as people become more desperate for the product.

Less opportunities stimulates demand as it's reward is more sort after. Players will work harder and appreciate an academy contract more if fewer positions are available.

If it's simply a case of more academies leads to more community players, we could double academies and therefore kids playing would also double, but this we pretty sure wouldn't happen.

IME the community game has complained about scholarships and Academys as they impact negatively the playing numbers.

I'm not saying we shouldn't have them but currently the impact is out of balance and this aims to correct that. Maybe they could have done it differently though 

It doesn’t aim to correct that issue - it has only chosen to do so in Wakefield and Hull. Not in other geos of similar size and proximity. All else is as before. Which suggests it’s not really the issue at hand, despite the spin. 

 

Regardless, it’s not about what academies bring, or that age group. It’s about what teams like Hull KR do upstream in the community, to expand the flow into that future age group. Since Rovers started focussing on this when they could finally afford to, not having the benefit of an extra decade of TV funds other teams have, participation in Hull is up significantly. With no potential benefit downstream, this work and its benefits will inevitably reduce - the club isn’t a charitable foundation, or rich. That’s why our local clubs back us. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JM2010 said:

I might get berated for this but what's wrong with having regional/joint academies as the elite with college based tier 2 academies for individual clubs underneath and a college league underneath that?

Not really berating but I'd question how you do that given the vast sums of money which have been invested already by a small number of clubs compared to others, plus the players already in the system. Also how do you then distribute players from joint systems to individual clubs for pro contracts?

For example, do Wigan, Leeds and Saints just donate all their coaches, players, expertise and community relationships to a joint pool of resources for clubs like Hull KR and Cas to get an equal share of? That's never happening until all clubs have invested similar sums and have systems of similar quality.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Moove said:

Not really berating but I'd question how you do that given the vast sums of money which have been invested already by a small number of clubs compared to others, plus the players already in the system. Also how do you then distribute players from joint systems to individual clubs for pro contracts?

For example, do Wigan, Leeds and Saints just donate all their coaches, players, expertise and community relationships to a joint pool of resources for clubs like Hull KR and Cas to get an equal share of? That's never happening until all clubs have invested similar sums and have systems of similar quality.

I'm not sure how it works to be honest. I'd be interested to know the dynamics of the joint Hull Academy when it was running.

I think Leeds, Saints, Wigan and Warrington have a big enough catchment on their own so wouldnt need to join with anyone. 

It's more about Hull and Hull KR, Wakefield and Castleford, Huddersfield, Bradford and Halifax etc. How do we incorporate the clubs that have missed out into the academies of the ones that have been granted one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JM2010 said:

I might get berated for this but what's wrong with having regional/joint academies as the elite with college based tier 2 academies for individual clubs underneath and a college league underneath that?

With so many tiers you are decimating the community game even more than currently 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...