London Broncos 2024

[Griff]

18 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

Have you got any evidence of that widespread view?  Would be genuinely interested.

Google is your friend.

As Harry says, this has been highly controversial.  Amateur clubs are highly critical of academies who play the numbers game.  

There's a place for academies but not one per club.

[gingerjon]

6 minutes ago, Griff said:

Google is your friend.

As Harry says, this has been highly controversial.  Amateur clubs are highly critical of academies who play the numbers game.  

There's a place for academies but not one per club.

I thought Harry's view was that all clubs who want to run them should be allowed to - so you could easily end up with one per club.

[phiggins]

7 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I thought Harry's view was that all clubs who want to run them should be allowed to - so you could easily end up with one per club.

One per club would probably be better than a lower number of academies with clubs hoovering up and discarding a high number of players.

Assuming each club has necessary funding, facilities, coaching, safeguards etc in place. 

[Gomersall]

53 minutes ago, Dave T said:

If reversing trends and addressing all the games ills was as simple as hiring professionals for 2 years, surely we'd have done it years ago? And why sign a 12 year deal if it can be fixed so quickly?

Or maybe people are being silly.

We did Dave. They were called Nigel and Ralph.

[Griff]

23 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

I thought Harry's view was that all clubs who want to run them should be allowed to - so you could easily end up with one per club.

I don't agree with Harry.  Other than the subject is highly controversial.

Edited November 16, 2023 by Griff

[Damien]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Harry, I'd suggest that the vast majority who don't like what IMG are doing were always gonna be against IMG. 

This is absolutely the case.

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

I thought Harry's view was that all clubs who want to run them should be allowed to - so you could easily end up with one per club.

Yes if they can afford one, why not?

[binosh]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

Did not in the last review and awarding of licences by the RFL talk about saturation of areas, and in part reading between the lines suggested that Cas and Fev being close to Wakefield, Hull KR next to Hull FC, Bradford inbetween Leeds and Huddersfield, they had their licences revoked (all but Fev who didn't have one) only for pressure that forced Rimmer to reinstate them, and also Leigh being surrounded by Wigan, Saints and Wire had the same problem.

The thing is there is a reward for bringing lads through the system, not to mention in house player availability, cherry picking should not be allowed there should not be one law for some, it should be available to all.

You would think the RFL would embrace hotbeds of Rugby League talent, Leigh Miners have oversubscribed teams at every age group as I’m led to believe to Leigh East, and more so Leigh RU who have the biggest children’s rugby programme in the area. Most of the lads play both codes at an early age.
 

There is more than enough talent to be able to give these lads a real chance at getting picked up even though Saints, Warrington and Wigan cherry pick them, there are an awful lot of young lads would love to play for the Leopards. Surely another strong academy system is great for the future of the English game?

Not to mention that both Miners and RU clubs have a huge pool of women playing and teams at most age groups.

Edited November 16, 2023 by binosh

[gingerjon]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes if they can afford one, why not?

That's not the point of view of many in the community game.

It's another example of how someone's common sense solution meets someone else's common sense solution but they are at complete odds with each other.

[del capo]

22 minutes ago, binosh said:

You would think the RFL would embrace hotbeds of Rugby League talent, Leigh Miners have oversubscribed teams at every age group as I’m led to believe to Leigh East, and more so Leigh RU who have the biggest children’s rugby programme in the area. Most of the lads play both codes at an early age.
 

There is more than enough talent to be able to give these lads a real chance at getting picked up even though Saints, Warrington and Wigan cherry pick them, there are an awful lot of young lads would love to play for the Leopards. Surely another strong academy system is great for the future of the English game?

Not to mention that both Miners and RU clubs have a huge pool of women playing and teams at most age groups.

Both Miners and Easts have struggled  this year in the vital age groups - 16's , 18's and reserve open age.

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Harry, I'd suggest that the vast majority who don't like what IMG are doing were always gonna be against IMG. 

Really.

4 minutes ago, Damien said:

This is absolutely the case.

Of course, and in reverse all those who like what IMG are doing are going to be pro IMG. 

I have not altered my opinion since IMG were first introduced. I was anti just as some were pro that's life, I even had some of the pro lobby saying to me Your Owner is pro IMG, so what, I have my own opinion, but after all the time, effort and money he has spent and without doubt his 5 year plan born mid '21 (before IMG) seems to be working, but should his team finish high in the table and then still get demoted will he change his mindset?

And it could be by a minuscule fraction of a point for any club that they lose SL status and the rewards that go with it, should that be the case I would not blame any club for taking it as legally high as possible to have everything checked, double checked, scrutinised and audited and should any action of that nature compromise the start of '25 and compromise the SKY contract, Tough.

[Dovster]

I have to congratulate London on playing the IMG Spreadsheet League Table.

No points for junior development = no investment in junior development.

I can't understand all the whinging. Its the new world. Bring it on.

 

[del capo]

1 hour ago, Griff said:

I don't agree with Harry.  Other than the subject is highly controversial.

Complicated as well as controversial.

Few know that there is an Agreement that the professionals are limited to a maximum number of Elite licences  and even fewer that they are further limited to a maximum trawl of 400 youngster each year between them.( Operational Rule c.1.8.18.)

And there are good reasons for that being the case........

As an aside last week a good friend of mine and Chief Scout of one of the best clubs at recruitment in the game repeated his view that the Scholarship system is a waste of effort and money. Many of his peers share that opinion. A change in age groupings could well be next.

[Dave T]

13 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Really.

Of course, and in reverse all those who like what IMG are doing are going to be pro IMG. 

I have not altered my opinion since IMG were first introduced. I was anti just as some were pro that's life, I even had some of the pro lobby saying to me Your Owner is pro IMG, so what, I have my own opinion, but after all the time, effort and money he has spent and without doubt his 5 year plan born mid '21 (before IMG) seems to be working, but should his team finish high in the table and then still get demoted will he change his mindset?

And it could be by a minuscule fraction of a point for any club that they lose SL status and the rewards that go with it, should that be the case I would not blame any club for taking it as legally high as possible to have everything checked, double checked, scrutinised and audited and should any action of that nature compromise the start of '25 and compromise the SKY contract, Tough.

You were the one positioning that maybe people had changed their mind and the quality of work isn't what was expected. I'd suggest that very few have changed their mind.

You don't like the quality of work they have done, but you were against them from day 1. That's your prerogative.

[binosh]

14 minutes ago, del capo said:

Both Miners and Easts have struggled  this year in the vital age groups - 16's , 18's and reserve open age.

That’s not the info I’m aware of, as an example Leigh have just advertised a trial training session for the new reserve team to be held this month with 150 places available and they all went quickly with a waiting list now available.

[Click]

3 minutes ago, binosh said:

That’s not the info I’m aware of, as an example Leigh have just advertised a trial training session for the new reserve team to be held this month with 150 places available and they all went quickly with a waiting list now available.

Is that the SL Leigh? Not sure you can compare 150+ people applying for a SL reserves team and junior numbers and reserves at 2 local amateur teams.

[del capo]

1 minute ago, binosh said:

That’s not the info I’m aware of, as an example Leigh have just advertised a trial training session for the new reserve team to be held this month with 150 places available and they all went quickly with a waiting list now available.

Where have most of those trialists  learned their trade ?

Miners 18's gave their last 3 games, East's didn't run with a 16's  and their reserves played  just friendlies .Miners Reserves forfeited 4 matches. And yes most people would describe  Leigh as in the healthy heartlands.

No tree survives without decent roots.

[Archie Gordon]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

Harry, I'd suggest that the vast majority who don't like what IMG are doing were always gonna be against IMG. 

I'd say that's kinda trite (and that saying the reverse would be just as trite).

A common theme in the criticism is that IMG are very welcome to start doing the things they're expert at. It's just that they've fannied about doing stuff that we didn't need them to do or could have done just as badly ourselves.

I want IMG to get going on the things they promised to do first before they got sucked into the gradings. I'm ready to swing in right behind them if they focus on digital, social media, branding, streaming, ticketing, merch, etc. I don't think I'm alone.

[Griff]

57 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Yes if they can afford one, why not?

 

This is why.

 

18 minutes ago, del capo said:

Complicated as well as controversial.

Few know that there is an Agreement that the professionals are limited to a maximum number of Elite licences  and even fewer that they are further limited to a maximum trawl of 400 youngster each year between them.( Operational Rule c.1.8.18.)

And there are good reasons for that being the case........

As an aside last week a good friend of mine and Chief Scout of one of the best clubs at recruitment in the game repeated his view that the Scholarship system is a waste of effort and money. Many of his peers share that opinion. A change in age groupings could well be next.

 

[Lowdesert]

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Did not in the last review and awarding of licences by the RFL talk about saturation of areas, and in part reading between the lines suggested that Cas and Fev being close to Wakefield, Hull KR next to Hull FC, Bradford inbetween Leeds and Huddersfield, they had their licences revoked (all but Fev who didn't have one) only for pressure that forced Rimmer to reinstate them, and also Leigh being surrounded by Wigan, Saints and Wire had the same problem.

The thing is there is a reward for bringing lads through the system, not to mention in house player availability, cherry picking should not be allowed there should not be one law for some, it should be available to all.

The quote was that there are very few who favour academies.  What evidence?

Got to say, if you are running a club who has exceptional/right build/very quick type players, you would be very naive to think that a pro club will not be interested.

Secondly, as a coach, why would you want to stand in a players way?  By bringing them to that standard you’ve done an exceptional job anyway and all in that players best interests.

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

I want IMG to get going on the things they promised to do first before they got sucked into the gradings. I'm ready to swing in right behind them if they focus on digital, social media, branding, streaming, ticketing, merch, etc. I don't think I'm alone.

IMG have clearly identified that to do all that stuff they are good at, they need to have the product on offer to do so (ie the clubs). Currently they only have 7 that meet their ideal levels.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Archie Gordon said:

I'd say that's kinda trite (and that saying the reverse would be just as trite).

A common theme in the criticism is that IMG are very welcome to start doing the things they're expert at. It's just that they've fannied about doing stuff that we didn't need them to do or could have done just as badly ourselves.

I want IMG to get going on the things they promised to do first before they got sucked into the gradings. I'm ready to swing in right behind them if they focus on digital, social media, branding, streaming, ticketing, merch, etc. I don't think I'm alone.

I disagree. For a couple of reasons. Firstly, people don't like to admit their initial impressions were wrong. Often they'll double down. Harry has been extremely vocal on this. It takes a fair bit to admit they have changed their opinion. 

And secondly, its far too early imo to make an assessment of their work, so I wouldn't expect people to be blown away one way or another. 

On the last para, could you highlight what IMG have said they'd do that they haven't? 

 

[Griff]

4 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

IMG have clearly identified that to do all that stuff they are good at, they need to have the product on offer to do so (ie the clubs). Currently they only have 7 that meet their ideal levels.

To be fair, Tommy, surely that's enough to be getting on with, given that there are several near misses on what are merely indicative ratings.

If we wait until everything's perfect, we'll never get anywhere.

[Tommygilf]

2 minutes ago, Griff said:

To be fair, Tommy, surely that's enough to be getting on with, given that there are several near misses on what are merely indicative ratings.

If we wait until everything's perfect, we'll never get anywhere.

They've brought in the gradings to find the best of the rest to help them do that too tbf. I should have phrased it clearer.

[bobbruce]

3 hours ago, binosh said:

Yes why not? They can be as expensive or as low cost to run as they are made to be.

Only a governing body as inept as the RFL would put a cap on the future of the game.

I think most governing bodies would set some standards clubs have to achieve in order to run academies.