There doesn't appear to be any clarification of the relative weightings between the 4 Key Areas of Academies that have been assessed.

For any judgement to be made as to the accuracy of the gradings we would need to know this. If they all carry equal weight then the gradings are a nonsense.

None of your post mentions any of our young players, all your doing is basing you whole point on us being 12th (massively thanks to Millward). The reason we are 12th is not because of our youth system it's in spite of it. We spend nowhere near the cap and I'm sure having better players around them would only help player development other clubs can afford that luxury, we can't.

Whatever the evidence your not going to change your views. If your anti cas bias is too blinding that you ignore blatant facts then there isn't much point commenting in future.

Having read through the accreditation the whole process is totally flawed and is totally outcome based (how many players represent england 16s and academy) and how many go through to first team.

Wigan and Leeds are judged as having the best academies. Whilst no one can argue on the talent that has come through people are totally missing the point in wrongly assuming they have the best academies.

At present when players are signed for scholarship wigan and Leeds swoop in and take the vast majority of players (u15) hence already have the best players with the most potential already. It is obvious that they are going to see the most players come through. It also annoys me that wigan are now actively recruiting players from West Yorkshire for scholarship. Does wigan not have enough players in the local area to sign? The answer is they are harming the game in creating super academy teams that most other clubs will never compete with. Other clubs are left with what you may say are decent young players but not current high performers in that age group.

Therefore wigan and Leeds always have a greater start point in terms of players than most other clubs. What actually goes on at academies tells a totally different story to the gradings given. Delivery at some clubs graded a '3' is laughable as these clubs may not have star young players but develop these players really well in making good progress with the odd few becoming squad super league players or championship players.

Until as a game we balance academies out with equal strength players from scholarship all the way through then allowing Leeds and wigan a monopoly over every age groups best young players will only hinder the long term progress of the game as a whole. One final thing, when wigan and Leeds sign the majority of your highest performing school kids each year maybe 4-5 of these will get through to first team, what happens to the rest??? Answer is they either drop out of the game totally or end up playing championship rugby and never fulfilling the potential they clearly had as a youngster. Spread these kids around more evenly and you create a very competitive academy league and more will develop at each club to first team!

By the way this it not a dig at Leeds or wigan rather the systems in place that allow such a unfair and flawed accreditation that plasters over the real issues in player development in England. As a game we are brainwashed into thinking certain academies are better than others. I will sit and argue all day that their are a few clubs not graded as '1' that in terms of coaching and development including education rival Leeds and wigan. They just don't have the current calibre of player to start with and never get credit for the outstanding delivery that goes on!

Cant argue with that, greatly admire your youth system and quality you bring through. The AA is probably a bit like Ofsted a tick box system nothing to do with reality.