Ive no idea how it would work to be honest but at the moment it comes down to who has the biggest cheque book and SL sides signing players on the off chance they might make it. Bradford will find this out to a much greater extent when your academy becomes of less importance than the money it costs to run it which will happen eventually. Maybe Im a little bit bitter because we have the best junior set up in the country at Siddal but do not have a hope in hell of getting any of their players. There has to be a fairer way of doing it for the good of the competition.

Bradford haven't had a large cheque book for a while now so why are they still producing good players??

Whilst I agree with 90% of what has been said on this thread the biggest crime is Pro clubs signing kids in droves, telling them there the next big thing and then discarding them as worthless at an age where they are then lost to the game all together. It is F@@@ing criminal and I'm afraid Bradford have been one of the worst for it over the last 15 years.

The players that Bradford are now seeing are players that were signed when they were still living beyond their means. You will see a distinct drop in quality over the coming years as you go part time and the academy has to take a back seat.

Totally agree, some of these kids would be better signing at part time clubs and been developed slowly but SL clubs can not take that chance just in case they miss one.

Eventually the penny will drop that the sport needs building from the ground up. Some SL supporters are already suggesting that there aren't enough players playing the game to support a 13 or 14 team super league.
They should never have voted to scrap the reserves structure. It should never have even been put to a vote in the first place. Clubs should have been made to run a reserves setup even if it meant doing so at the detriment of their first team squad.
Instead we have this farce where countless players reach the age of 19 and immediately find themselves in limbo or being passed from pillar to post, Rawsthorne being a perfect example.

Funny i was talking to someone from the club on Saturday and they are of the opinion they have some very talent individuals they are picking up.

Agreed. Look at James Bentley. Had offers from other clubs as ajunior. Chose us, been developed, still eligible for the academy this year, but has played every minute of every game he's been fit for and has scored 12 tries this year. He now has a choice of eight SL clubs all wanting to sign him.

Browsing around various clubs boards regarding junior development, there does seem to be a theme that some of the starlets at U16s, get offered ridiculous money (Warrington seem to be guilty of this) and then the said player never kicks on. The Leeds board gives a few examples of when they had players with huge potential on their books. Warrington came and offered stupid money (I've heard offering 30k for players graduating from scholarship level to join their U19s) and then the player never develops and is another a wasted talent. Who have Warrington developed in the last couple of years that has established themselves? Not having a go at Warrington as they at least fund a reserves, but my point is some junior players get offered silly money for a "bigger" club, then either fall in love with themselves or never kick on. Staying at a smaller club and being developed is sometimes the better option. A lot of the bigger clubs struggle to develop and nurture talent. Warrington, Hull, and even Saints don't seem to be producing first team players like before. I still think we're one of the best at developing talent and long may it continue whatever division we're in.

Agreed Bullmania. I know that John Bastian leads a team that have a superb track record of recruiting talented youngsters , many of whom have had the chance to go to Super League academies. It is not the cheque book that has persuaded these young 'uns ( and their families!!) , rather the programme of development and the links to educational institutions. There are many examples of young players who have not secured full time contracts but have nevertheless learnt skills which will stand them in good stead for the future .
Whatever the faults of the RFL ( and there are many), I for one am glad they included continuation of the Academy as one of the criteria for new ownership. And I'm pleased Chalmers has made a firm commitment to continuing the Academy next year regardless of survival in the championship or relegation.

Mike Cooper and Ben Currie are the only Warrington academy products that have made it to the highest level recently that I can think of.

Remember John B was at Warrington a while too (98-2013). Cooper and Currie were his proteges.

My view of the comments from Chalmers about the academy and a reserve side is that they see an opportunity to build a team around the academy products, leavened with experienced players, that will form the basis of a squad for the long march back to SL. There's already a few such players that are both good players and prepared to leave it all on the pitch, obviously r and b, Peltier gives it all, etc.

The challenge will be (as it has been for a while now) to keep the academy products for long enough to get the club moving in the right direction before they go onto SL clubs.

Why could there not be a rule in place that at least 5 first team players (for example) have to have come from the club's own academy?

Probably because some clubs (Salford for example) don't have an academy. So they wouldn't even be able to bring that rule in for at least a few years to allow for teams to get the academy set up, and then produce players from it of a reasonable age to play first team (i.e. not 18 year old having to play just to satisfy the criteria, kinda like they did in a different way with Bradford...)

Well surely that's the point, if they have to do it then they will. Had it been a rule for sometime, then Salford would have an academy already...

Agreed, could maybe look to introduce something like that gradually? I.e. start with 1 and gradually increase it over a period of time. That way teams have a while to start focusing on an academy and not throwing average players in who may not be good enough for SL. That'd be detrimental to the quality of the league and could reduce viewing figures, thus leaving clubs struggling financially.

Good idea in prospect but as I think it'd need to be introduced slowly, the RFL would probably end up scrapping it after a few years knowing what they're like.

So sharlston are actually starting to put structure in place to join conference rather than just moaning about getting turned down. It would be good to see them in the confer nce with the right structures

That's exactly what I was thinking. Yes, it could be introduced so that in, say, 5 years, you have to have so many academy players in your team. But 5 years is likely to be the very minimum it'll take before it can be brought in, and the RFL are really not good at sticking with these kind of structures. It seems they change the reserve/academy system every couple of years, so a 5 year plus plan doesn't sound possible for them.

When did they scrap rules about having to have a certain number of homegrown players in squad?. Remember it used to be 7 or 8

This.

All this said and how can clubs be encouraged to commit to reserves set ups when even the RFL treat them with little respect. Fax's game tonight called off because the RFL can not provide a referee.

Edit: Seems the game was called off because Hull can not provide a doctor although the worry about a ref was true up to the game been called off.

Whilst I can clearly see the benefits of the idea of a minimum number of academy players in the side, it seems a little difficult to work out how it works in practice, to be honest.

Are we talking 5 from the 17 or five from the first team squad? If it's from the 17, what about injuries? Supposing a couple (or more) of the ex-academy lads are unavailable? Do you have to put in these players who maybe off-form just to make up the numbers? Will it possibly mean current academy lads been given more game time than is good for them, just to cover these gaps?

I agree that a five year plan is hopelessly long term to expect the RFL to manage it, but the club chairmen are also in the dock, as many are very short term and won't spend more than they feel they have to on the youngsters, and some clearly feel that figure is zippo.

Well if Halifax can manage 4 players this year that are first team regulars that came through our reserves on a shoe string budget then SL teams should be able to manage it. Further to that we have 12 first team members who have either played their junior rugby in the area,come through our reserves, or are from the area. Of those 12 I believe there is only 1 of them that is not a "cast off" from other clubs which not only gives an idea what teams like Halifax are up against but also shows theres a lot of talent that goes to SL that would probably do better in a lower league developing at a bit of a slower rate or spending time with people that will be able to spend more of their time with them.

Depending on their aspirations young players will always choose the offer which (they feel) suits them best. Some clubs have a better offer than others and some chairmen don't value youth training at all. Some players thrive in the 'hothouse' of a full academy and others are better served in a less intense junior system as operated by some amateur semi-pro clubs. Some players, for whatever reason, don't always make the choice which would serve them best. All these players are affected by the ridiculous situation of being in limbo if they can't make first team rugby by 19. The fact that such a great player as Jamie Peacock was into his twenties before being 'regular' in the Bradford side shows just how stupid it is.

Karl Harrison stating on the radio coverage that Bentley and Ryan are likely to be at Odsal next year. Is he their agent?

Yes so that news is very encouraging