Who will have an A licence and why?

[Jughead]

20 minutes ago, Loiner said:

Just to side track the debate, what happened with Knowsley Road. Was the land used for housing or something else? 

Housing. I have a relative who lives on Newlove Avenue (which was named after Paul). 

[David Dockhouse Host]

11 hours ago, Saint Toppy said:

It’s up to the rest of the clubs to improve their academy set ups to match the best teams, then youngsters will have a genuine choice of who to sign for. Now most just have maybe 4-5 top ones to pick from, hopefully the lure of an A licence may see 10-12 top academies in the future

I wish that were the case.

How do you improve the set up? They are all pretty much the same. 3 clubs have won SL in last 17 years, top youth select those teams and the cycle continues.

If I had a brilliant academy set up at huge annual cost but only for 5th draft of players it would be pointless.

Like giving a Michelin star chef beans and bread and saying create a masterpiece.

Little harsh on some kids who nature later but you get my point.

 

[Tommygilf]

Just now, Davo5 said:

It’s difficult & I’m not sure what the answer is but community clubs in some areas would be decimated if every club who wanted to was able to run an a academy,the stark facts are that a large percentage of academy players not offered pro contracts don’t return to the community game.

Absolutely. Let's not forget it was only through lack of conviction and spine that the RFL didn't follow through on their belief that KR or Cas didn't have enough playing resources to justify an academy based on their current recruitment pool.

Its an important balance to strike because as you say, the vast majority of academy players who then don't go pro don't return to the amateur levels either. And overmining can leave amateur clubs and indeed whole leagues decimated. There's always going to be a certain amount of wastage, but the governing body's role is to minimise the negative impact of that.

There must be some sort of formula, even if only very general, that says x number of clubs/teams can support 1 academy. 

[Loiner]

3 minutes ago, Jughead said:

Housing. I have a relative who lives on Newlove Avenue (which was named after Paul). 

Thanks. Are other streets named after Saints players as well? Great idea.

[Tommygilf]

11 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

I am absolutely sure that is why Leigh didn't get an academy Tommy.

Its always going to cost clubs coming from behind more money, perhaps some of that could be spent looking further afield.

[David Dockhouse Host]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Was it considered where licence's have been awarded? 

So in your eyes it is OK to keep some towns as feeders for other club's and for them to have all the financial advantages that go with that, and don't even consider saying they finance their academies, they would not do so if it was not to their advantage.

I don't remember you bringing this up with Derek Beaumont when you were sitting there with a smug expression when he was on your shows.

Now now Harry let's not get personal, keep it light.

When have I said what you have claimed? Pretty sure I said the opposite if I understand your point.

I said on my reply to Saint Tippy I would agree if it was an even playing field.

We did discuss Derek's developments and the work they are doing in the community? 

Edited October 1, 2022 by David Dockhouse Host

[Jughead]

2 minutes ago, Loiner said:

Thanks. Are other streets named after Saints players as well? Great idea.

Wellens Walk and Sculthorpe Close. I think one is named after Kel Coslett, too. Not sure of any others. 

[Tommygilf]

5 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

I wish that were the case.

How do you improve the set up? They are all pretty much the same. 3 clubs have won SL in last 17 years, top youth select those teams and the cycle continues.

If I had a brilliant academy set up at huge annual cost but only for 5th draft of players it would be pointless.

Like giving a Michelin star chef beans and bread and saying create a masterpiece.

Little harsh on some kids who nature later but you get my point.

 

The simple answer might be that your academy offering isn't as good as you think it is?

Some kids go to clubs because they are reknowned for success or they are supporters. Others go slightly unconventionally because there are more opportunities for progression. 

Its like any career. Join Leeds and your another cog in the wheel of a massive and successful business. Join Wakefield and you could be a superstar who is quickly up for promotion and even getting noticed by others for contracts, but the risk is that the initial rewards, facilities and prospects are worse.

Another key point is obviously that it takes time. And in all that time you with your academy are learning, the long standing academies recruiting the brightest minds to their coaching systems are kicking on too. Rewards won't be instant, but standing still is going backwards.

[bobbruce]

9 minutes ago, Loiner said:

Thanks. Are other streets named after Saints players as well? Great idea.

The site itself was called Cunningham grange. I think there is a Coslett Drive,Wellens Walk and Sculthorpe close. 

[dkw]

9 minutes ago, Jughead said:

Wellens Walk 

Should have called Wigan walk....

[Davo5]

25 minutes ago, Damien said:

This gets mentionee out, and it is true, but it also completely ignores the fact that a large percentage of community kids drop out after u18s anyway. Very few kids generally go on to open age. I'm not sure the percentages would be any different or worse when it comes to players staying on past u18s whether they are community players or those leaving the pro ranks.

The problem is that when you combine both of these factors it’s leaving a massive chasm at community clubs.

[Davo5]

6 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

The simple answer might be that your academy offering isn't as good as you think it is?

Some kids go to clubs because they are reknowned for success or they are supporters. Others go slightly unconventionally because there are more opportunities for progression. 

Its like any career. Join Leeds and your another cog in the wheel of a massive and successful business. Join Wakefield and you could be a superstar who is quickly up for promotion and even getting noticed by others for contracts, but the risk is that the initial rewards, facilities and prospects are worse.

Another key point is obviously that it takes time. And in all that time you with your academy are learning, the long standing academies recruiting the brightest minds to their coaching systems are kicking on too. Rewards won't be instant, but standing still is going backwards.

The better academies tend to cast their net further than their surrounding towns/villages,there is talent out there,clubs need to direct resources in identifying & recruiting it.

[David Dockhouse Host]

With the current academy system it's an advantage for some clubs not to have them.

This seems wrong on the surface but not when you consider the facts of the system. Academies cost money, fine if you get to cream the best talent and put them in your first team for years with salary cap benefits.

Not good if you have a low pick if players to begin with. There is no restrictions on recruitment, every team knows who the best players are, it's not that some clubs have better scouts, it's a small pool and everyone knows who the best players are 

Therefore they all try to sign them and the player gets to pick their team, they usually 90% select one of the big 3. How many of Saints academy products come from other rugby playing towns?

I've spoken with less fashionable teams and they often say we only get the players others don't want. Some teams don't even bother going for the best players as they know they are wasting time, they look for the fringe players 

Quite a few teams have dropped their academies as the cost doesn't justify the benefits. Running a college based is it Cat B academy is helpful and generates community engagement but with little likelihood of creating regular first team players. The less fashionable SL teams fill their squads with players who came through big 3 academies or by offering higher wages for good players. Further making it difficult as they often have to overpay.

So until the system changes, simply handing out more licenses won't actually benefit teams. But it will further create problems with community sport as it strip's players from amateur rugby and those who don't make it rarely return. There's a huge knock on issue.

So I understand why teams are not enthusiastic about running a cat A academy, I understand the RFL restricting academies as they look after all RL not just SL clubs.

Unless this system is ammended it will always continue this way with the occasional other team having a good year.  Often due to playing older age players but none the less.

This is how it plays out, don't shoot the messenger. 

[David Dockhouse Host]

11 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

The simple answer might be that your academy offering isn't as good as you think it is?

Some kids go to clubs because they are reknowned for success or they are supporters. Others go slightly unconventionally because there are more opportunities for progression. 

Its like any career. Join Leeds and your another cog in the wheel of a massive and successful business. Join Wakefield and you could be a superstar who is quickly up for promotion and even getting noticed by others for contracts, but the risk is that the initial rewards, facilities and prospects are worse.

Another key point is obviously that it takes time. And in all that time you with your academy are learning, the long standing academies recruiting the brightest minds to their coaching systems are kicking on too. Rewards won't be instant, but standing still is going backwards.

I agree there are exceptions and clubs can do more, but I don't believe it will be enough to consistently make an impact on the big 3.

If you always get 5th draft it doesn't matter how good your chef is. Not that some won't come through, of course they do but I'm talking about consistently. 

It's over simplistic to say better coaches leads to better players, they need ability to begin with. 

Agree this isn't an exact science though

Edited October 1, 2022 by David Dockhouse Host

[Harry Stottle]

17 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

Now now Harry let's not get personal, keep it light.

When have I said what you have claimed? Pretty sure I said the opposite if I understand your point.

I said on my reply to Saint Tippy I would agree if it was an even playing field.

We did discuss Derek's developments and the work they are doing in the community? 

I apologise if I misread your answer to me, but it looked like criticising at first.

And on the interview with Derek yes I know the community was brought up, but I was hoping it was going to be the rejection of the academy licence application by the RFL I wanted to hear about.

[Damien]

5 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

The problem is that when you combine both of these factors it’s leaving a massive chasm at community clubs.

Yeah it is. Its why I think there should be a u21s level to keep lads at that kind of age playing together. It can be a drastic change going from u18s to open age with loads of older fellas who have played together for years.

[David Dockhouse Host]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

I apologise if I misread your answer to me, but it looked like criticising at first.

And on the interview with Derek yes I know the community was brought up, but I was hoping it was going to be the rejection of the academy licence application by the RFL I wanted to hear about.

I wouldn't avoid the topic, but I will always be respectful to any guest, I do it as I enjoy it, I'm not a journalist or hard hitting host, I just want the show to be fun positive promote RL in our small way. So if it's to awkward I would probably spin it, thats our style and hopes for the show.

As in my other post I understand why clubs wouldn't want an academy, it's cost with minimal chance of benefit.

[Davo5]

9 minutes ago, David Dockhouse Host said:

With the current academy system it's an advantage for some clubs not to have them.

This seems wrong on the surface but not when you consider the facts of the system. Academies cost money, fine if you get to cream the best talent and put them in your first team for years with salary cap benefits.

Not good if you have a low pick if players to begin with. There is no restrictions on recruitment, every team knows who the best players are, it's not that some clubs have better scouts, it's a small pool and everyone knows who the best players are 

Therefore they all try to sign them and the player gets to pick their team, they usually 90% select one of the big 3. How many of Saints academy products come from other rugby playing towns?

I've spoken with less fashionable teams and they often say we only get the players others don't want. Some teams don't even bother going for the best players as they know they are wasting time, they look for the fringe players 

Quite a few teams have dropped their academies as the cost doesn't justify the benefits. Running a college based is it Cat B academy is helpful and generates community engagement but with little likelihood of creating regular first team players. The less fashionable SL teams fill their squads with players who came through big 3 academies or by offering higher wages for good players. Further making it difficult as they often have to overpay.

So until the system changes, simply handing out more licenses won't actually benefit teams. But it will further create problems with community sport as it strip's players from amateur rugby and those who don't make it rarely return. There's a huge knock on issue.

So I understand why teams are not enthusiastic about running a cat A academy, I understand the RFL restricting academies as they look after all RL not just SL clubs.

Unless this system is ammended it will always continue this way with the occasional other team having a good year.  Often due to playing older age players but none the less.

This is how it plays out, don't shoot the messenger. 

Sorry but that’s just rubbish used by some clubs who merely pay lip service to youth development.

[David Dockhouse Host]

2 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

Sorry but that’s just rubbish used by some clubs who merely pay lip service to youth development.

I respect your opinion Davo5 but disagree, this is based on my experience and what I've witnessed. 

I know clubs who are working very hard with youth development but more from a community engagement that expectation of turning a high percentage to first team.

They do brilliant work and hope to convert a few but it's a different purpose. Clubs are better at this engagement than I originally thought (some) but it won't convert 5th draft players to Internationals as much as they may try

[Davo5]

11 minutes ago, Damien said:

Yeah it is. Its why I think there should be a u21s level to keep lads at that kind of age playing together. It can be a drastic change going from u18s to open age with loads of older fellas who have played together for years.

I’d start by scrapping scholarships & going back to the service area model with clubs only  allowed to sign players to their youth systems after their 16th birthday.

[David Dockhouse Host]

1 minute ago, Davo5 said:

I’d start by scrapping scholarships & going back to the service area model with clubs only  allowed to sign players to their youth systems after their 16th birthday.

Agree with this, it's not a perfect solution but it's a start

[bobbruce]

6 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

I’d start by scrapping scholarships & going back to the service area model with clubs only  allowed to sign players to their youth systems after their 16th birthday.

Is there not a danger we leave the door open for RU to step in and take the cream of the crop before our clubs are even allowed to make an offer. 

[David Dockhouse Host]

Just now, bobbruce said:

Is there not a danger we leave the door open for RU to step in and take the cream of the crop before our clubs are even allowed to make an offer. 

I'm pretty sure RU can only sign at 17.

They do recruit from the same pool but IME they usually take those who e played both and put them in private schools, so not a huge threat IMO

[Tommygilf]

34 minutes ago, Davo5 said:

The better academies tend to cast their net further than their surrounding towns/villages,there is talent out there,clubs need to direct resources in identifying & recruiting it.

Of course. And if you're facing stiff competition from those organisations then you have to be more ingenious in both your offering and how you look for players.

[Damien]

20 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

Is there not a danger we leave the door open for RU to step in and take the cream of the crop before our clubs are even allowed to make an offer. 

There is that danger certainly. I know I have been told by people at Wigan that the fact RL clubs can sign players professionally before RU clubs is a huge advantage that has helped keep players in the game. As the game struggles to compete financially it would be stupid to give up an advantage like this.