It's no coincidence that the wealthiest sides have the best junior set ups (apart from Hudders).

That's because they can afford to do that.

With relegation back on the menu (probably) there's less incentive for clubs to plan long term when the risk is you could go down in one season.

Short sighted.

I know its impossible to keep them all but a team of

1. Reardon (I know hes not doing much now)
2. Naughton
3. Wardle
4. Atkins
5. Ben Hellewell
6. Bridge
7.
8. George B
9. Mark Flanagan (played there for wests and saints, struggling for a 9 tho)
10. Tom B
11. Bateman
12. Ferres
13. Sam B

With the exception of a scrum half I think this proves even throughout the noble years of not bringing youngsters through we have had the makings of a grand team! I know people say wigan could say many of their juniors are playing everywhere but the difference being they couldnt get a game due to other wigan juniors who were better. I think it proves we should be aiming to bring the young lads through when we can, and to be fair as we have been.

It might be but with the new threat of relegation and possible oblivion a club is more likely to concentrate on the present than the future as there may not be a future if you don't stay up. If money hand to mouth what do you expect?

7 or 8 years ago I'd have agreed without reservation but the evidence suggests that the further down the league and wealth table the club is, the greater chance that what benefit is accrued by investment in youth is not recouped by the club but goes to their wealthier competitors. Is this 'inverse proportion'?

Taken to it's conclusion, clubs in the bottom 2 would be better off by putting 17 random lads in the under 19's and merely telling them where to turn up to get hammered. All funds saved on coaches, kit, etc to be redirected to the first team squad.

Sort of agree, up to a point, but not helped by some of the examples.

Reardon did come through and was a GB player [iirc] when he left and I thought we saw the best of him, to be fair.

Atkins, Hellewell and Ferres are exactly the same as you say about Wigan ie they weren't good enough to break into the team at the time. I'll grant you Ferres was playing fairly regularly but he wasn't first choice.

Bridge was sacked for disciplinary reasons.

I don't think Flanagan really made it even when he moved away, in fact he's moved around a lot without 'making it'.

Don't forget Dave Halley as well

Bullseye: Why is promotion and relegation seen as a threat? Oblivion? It is a challenge; just as the franchise system was when that was introduced. What would be better if players are committed to the team (and their contracts) and won’t “jump ship” as soon as it becomes apparent that they are “going down”. The potential financial situation the club could find its self due to relegation is a direct result of the players not performing not due to the club’s youth policy.

M@islebugs: Interesting – walking to the game, playing in the nude – all money saving?

I’d say looking at our squad size and quality we’re more likely to be in the bottom half of the table next year. With any more key departures we’ll be further weakened and in more danger of finishing in the middle eight. That in turn means less income which means less resource which means smaller squad which means struggling on the field which means smaller crowds which means less income etc etc.

As that happens even the most committed players can become unsettled and want away. A club in those circumstances could be forgiven for doing all it can to finish in the top 8 next season.

Sounds like eating the seed corn if we ditch the youth program.

Even if the players don't stay with the Bulls we hopefully get a fee ( Bateman and Whitehead) and are helping to increase the overall player pool for the game.

I can see the financial situation might force this on a number of clubs - but long term it will hurt the whole game as with a smaller pool of players the top 4/6 will be in an even stronger position.

I wonder if recent sales would have occured if we had sold 7000 ST's?

Or had all the Sky Money.

I think the reported shortfall in ST sales is probably a much bigger hit to the budget than the lack of Sky money - and put the two together and you have a pretty big hole.

Have we announced a total number of Season ticket sales? Maybe they should do another early bird to cover the uncertainty of the weeks surrounding the ratification if the new ownership?

There's been no announcement of sales since the forum, to the best of my knowledge - though the phones and ticket office have allegedly been "red hot" since then.

One of the few things to come out of the forum was that there would be no extension to the 'early bird' price. To be honest, normally I would have supported that way of doing business because switching your offers about only makes it look like you don't know what you're doing, however with the recent problems with the RFL it might have been a 'goer' this time. Plus, many people get paid at the beginning of the month so a few more days might have pulled in those who got paid on the day it finished but couldn't get down or get through on the phone.

I understand what you are getting at but we don't ant to drop into the same position as before. There is no point in getting season ticket numbers if it doesn;t pay the mortgage. Early bird was extra cherap for people showing faith in the team and backing them when the future was uncertain. If you weren't willing to take that gamble then you an buy a season ticket at the regular price.