Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts


1 minute ago, Hela Wigmen said:

So, we’ve got 3-4 sides that are likely to be in Super League in 2022 without an Elite Academy but must have a Reserve Grade? 

Looking that way, but to be honest even getting access to a reserve team would be a relief as a Leigh fan considering we were knocked back last time we asked to join.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Hela Wigmen said:

So, we’ve got 3-4 sides that are likely to be in Super League in 2022 without an Elite Academy but must have a Reserve Grade? 

In my opinion all clubs in Super League should have academies and so should clubs in the Championship who aspire to play in Super League. The obvious problem is some clubs didn't reach the standards the RFL were looking for and i hope that the clubs address the problems.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Future is League said:

In my opinion all clubs in Super League should have academies and so should clubs in the Championship who aspire to play in Super League. The obvious problem is some clubs didn't reach the standards the RFL were looking for and i hope that the clubs address the problems.

The main feedback Castleford stated they received was too many academies in a small area and not enough academy players transitioning to the first time. The first is out of their control and the second they cannot fix if they have the academy removed. I don't think this is anything more than a cost cutting exercise for an RFL terrified of losing funding.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

If it's dictated by player availability and financial resources(probably the key factor here considering RFL is still trying to secure funding from the new TV deal), then what hope could clubs possibly have to get those final 2 spots?

On the first point, demonstrate that you are able to be at the level required and/or fishing from a broader pool.

On the second one, they've reduced the overall number but there's still 2 spare spots that were up for grabs. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

The main feedback Castleford stated they received was too many academies in a small area and not enough academy players transitioning to the first time. The first is out of their control and the second they cannot fix if they have the academy removed. I don't think this is anything more than a cost cutting exercise for an RFL terrified of losing funding.

They can, they can look at more than just players in their immediate vicinity.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just now, Tommygilf said:

They can, they can look at more than just players in their immediate vicinity.

They already do, Ryan Brierley for one went from Leigh's catchment area to go through Castlefords Academy. they certainly can't recruit more from outside their immediate vicinity without a Cat 1 academy.  

At the end of the day, you don't improve clubs academies by disbanding them. If they are underperforming, by all means implement special measures such as reduced funding etc pending improvements. If this is an RFL cost cutting exercise because SL clubs have cut them out of the TV deals then fine, but they should call it what it is rather than hiding behind excuses, because much like the decision for promotion in 2021 the criteria is set in a way that they can justify doing whatever they please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

 

They already do, Ryan Brierley for one went from Leigh's catchment area to go through Castlefords Academy. they certainly can't recruit more from outside their immediate vicinity without a Cat 1 academy.  

At the end of the day, you don't improve clubs academies by disbanding them. If they are underperforming, by all means implement special measures such as reduced funding etc pending improvements. If this is an RFL cost cutting exercise because SL clubs have cut them out of the TV deals then fine, but they should call it what it is rather than hiding behind excuses, because much like the decision for promotion in 2021 the criteria is set in a way that they can justify doing whatever they please.

In fairness special measures/reducing funding doesn't improve things either.

They've got £1.2million funding allocated. They want it to go into academies that they believe will be best bang for buck. They currently think only 10 academies (and 9 English ones) meet their criteria. I honestly don't think they would say they had funding for extra spots but didn't dish it out if they didn't.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

In fairness special measures/reducing funding doesn't improve things either.

They've got £1.2million funding allocated. They want it to go into academies that they believe will be best bang for buck. They currently think only 10 academies (and 9 English ones) meet their criteria. I honestly don't think they would say they had funding for extra spots but didn't dish it out if they didn't.

£1.2m isn't enough to fully fund 12 academies. They get £100k base funding plus additional payments depending on the successes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LeytherRob said:

£1.2m isn't enough to fully fund 12 academies. They get £100k base funding plus additional payments depending on the successes.

I mean it was a round figure. It doesn't really matter the point is they could have funded (although its not really funding its supporting as the infrastructure etc costs more than £100k) 2 extra setups but chose not to because they weren't at the required standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tommygilf said:

I mean it was a round figure. It doesn't really matter the point is they could have funded (although its not really funding its supporting as the infrastructure etc costs more than £100k) 2 extra setups but chose not to because they weren't at the required standard.

What is the required standard?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

What is the required standard?

Whatever the RFL have set out to clubs. I'm not privy to that info but I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out the generalities.

Some undeniably have faced additional competition given their proximity to other clubs. But if Wakey have got in and some others haven't people can make of that what they will.

Edited by Tommygilf
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although the anger from those disposessed is completely understandable the implications seem even more striking. On the face of it, it looks like a recipe that's great for the haves.

Are we to be entertained with how wonderful the production line at certain clubs when so many are not allowed to have one?

The idea of status being something you earn in the first place from the same outfit that has never bothered with its own stadia criteria is hilarious.

All this seems to mean is that all the best players from all areas will gravitate towards those with the right pathway.

 

 

  • Like 1

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 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...

A lot of those players mentioned aren't from Bradford community clubs anyway. They were produced by their community clubs then signed by Bradford. 

I think the argument is that those players would have still been signed by a professional club but not as many players need signing to pack out academy teams if there aren't as many in the same area. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Whatever the RFL have set out to clubs. I'm not privy to that info but I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out the generalities.

Some undeniably have faced additional competition given their proximity to other clubs. But if Wakey have got in and some others haven't people can make of that what they will.

Clearly from the statements clubs have been putting out, it hasn't been defined at all and that is the problem. On one hand there are suggestions of below par academies being axed, but on the other you suggestions from multiple journos that  the main factor has been geography reasons and impact on the amateur game. The issue is, once you've defined the 'haves' and 'have nots' it's almost impossible to upset the status quo without one of the haves going belly up. If you are limiting to 3  academies in W.yorks for example, how can a club without a cat 1 academy now possibly hope to prove they can do a better job running one when they are bidding against a fully funded cat 1 neighbor who will now be in much greater control of a concentrated junior playing pool. Everyone complains on here about SL being won by so few teams but are quite happy to see teams below them hamstrung into positions that make a competitive division even harder.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

Clearly from the statements clubs have been putting out, it hasn't been defined at all and that is the problem.

They've had two years to get the details.

  • 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

3 hours ago, Mumby Magic said:

So please can someone answer. Does this mean that if a club wants run an academy the RFL won't allow it?

One of the main things you need when operating an Academy is to have a fixture list against testing opposition. You need one of these licences to get on the fixture list.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, JM2010 said:

A lot of those players mentioned aren't from Bradford community clubs anyway. They were produced by their community clubs then signed by Bradford. 

I think the argument is that those players would have still been signed by a professional club but not as many players need signing to pack out academy teams if there aren't as many in the same area. 

 

I see this as the largest factor here.

So many players are used to fill positions in Academies with little chance of making the next step. These players often drop out of the game completely, therefore list to all levels of the game.

Reducing academies will mean fewer community players will be taken into the elite competition, leaving the community game and tier 2/3 academies with enough players to fulfil fixtures.

Should all SL clubs have reserves they still progress their own players but from 19+, recruited from community and other academies, benefitting from another clubs coaching.

That happens now, with the same few academies having the pick of talent at 14/16, leaving the majority of clubs recruiting the 3rd 4th best talent from the community game, again rarely converting players to the top level. Although it does happen, that talent will most likely be drafted by other academies, so those elite players won't miss out.

Yes this is really tough on the clubs missing out, but I'm not convinced it will greatly affect their pathways if they now run reserves, and the elite talent will be playing in a tighter competition along with keeping more players in the community game. So I see potential positives for the bigger picture. Sometimes more isn't better, quality versus quantity, professional versus amateur clubs etc. 

In addition, those who missed out can apply again in the future when they improve their offer or dare I say it merge😳😁

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Future is League said:

In my opinion all clubs in Super League should have academies and so should clubs in the Championship who aspire to play in Super League. The obvious problem is some clubs didn't reach the standards the RFL were looking for and i hope that the clubs address the problems.

Effectively that could mean 26 Academies. There are only a finite amount of well ran Amateur Clubs operating U15 and U16 sides to Scout prospects from. For 26 Academies you'd be needing 100+ quality Amateur Clubs fielding sides at all age groups....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

I thought it was 'matched funding' up to a maximum of £100k?

It's matched funding up to £100k plus additional payments on top based on performance.

 

The academy licence period has been changed to be in line with the broadcast contract, which is up at the end of the year. The current funding model sees every academy receive around £100,000 of base funding, with a reward on top of that depending on how productive the academy is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours 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. 

 

See Double D’s post above your own mate.  

It doesn’t stop any of those you mention from running Academies.  It doesn’t monopolise anything other than, I imagine, funding.  It doesn’t prevent the best players going either.  If Leigh have good, enthusiastic coaches that are passionate and determined to develop kids, there is no reason that they cannot can still do that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LeytherRob said:

The main feedback Castleford stated they received was too many academies in a small area and not enough academy players transitioning to the first time. The first is out of their control and the second they cannot fix if they have the academy removed. I don't think this is anything more than a cost cutting exercise for an RFL terrified of losing funding.

That wasn't the main feedback at all.

They have a very poor set-up, very limited investment, poor welfare and education and are ranked BOTTOM in production of professional players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

There were/are 2 spots available. 

This is the first time I've ever seen an RFL process where they have genuinely applied standards and said "nope, there's not enough to meet the criteria so we'll leave the last two."

Its also quite clearly a rationalisation dictated by player availability and financial resources.

The RFL haven’t been doing their job in some instances.  I’ve already said, the number one objective is to get young players into pro rugby league.  If clubs aren’t achieving that, then their system or the audit has not conformed which should’ve been highlighted in audit reports.  Many academies were getting top marks but still not producing players.  Clubs should refer back to these reports if they are unhappy as there might just be evidence that this wasn’t picked up.

 

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...