But that’s the whole point really. An academy should be a minimum requirement in the same way as having a club doctor or a stadium with minimum safety requirements is seen as the base standards for a club that can’t be withdrawn regardless of club finances.

Nobody would say it would be acceptable for a club to not have proper medical staff. They would say you have to reduce other costs (eg players wages) first.

An academy is an essential cost of doing business, not a desirable add-on if it can be afforded after a club has maxed out the salary cap for instance.
No-one is suggesting it would be funded and resourced as well as the top academies, but one should exist even if it’s only doing the bare minimum one would expect from an academy.

It’s this kind of prioritisation of players wages that distorts the market and distorts the game. Essentially, Salford can’t afford the amount they are paying out in players wages because they should be paying £100-200k+ a year on a bare minimum academy. So they’ve inflated the wages market by that amount. Making every other club slightly less profitable.

This is what we did 30 odd years ago and it nearly killed the sport. We’re doing the same again as a sport with clubs (not just Salford, I’ve just used them as an example) paying wages that really they can’t afford and shouldn’t be paying. That money should be spent elsewhere.

I agree with you but I don't see it happening in the short term, our priority is staying in Super League because if we don't we won't have an academy or anything else to worry about.

BTW I don't even know which clubs do or don't run one bar Widnes and Hull share.

Is criteria still in place that clubs must have a minimum number of home grown players? Salford will be struggling to meet that in a few years without an academy.

All Super League clubs should be running academy’s. Not been able to afford it is a pathetic short sighted excuse. Salford can afford to bring in Jackson Hastings from the NRL for the Middle 8’s.

The home grown rule got binned off around the same time as franchising iirc. Possibly because it was considered a big ask for a newly promoted team to meet the criterion after a period without the infrastructure in place, and exceptions could soon get messy.

If clubs are responsible for youth development, then fair enough they should do their bit. It might not be hugely worthwhile from a narrow and selfish POV for some clubs, but can maybe be considered a fair exchange for the bigger clubs accepting the salary cap. However, the short-term incentives mean Salford are behaving rationally. My club tried to take a longer term view in 2016, with a now infamous five year plan - that went badly.

Edit - also paying Jackson Hastings for 2 and a half months is unlikely to cost the same as running an academy programme.

Fax are in this season's middle 8's because they have a reserve squad. Accepted that an SL reserve squad will have different dimensions, but iirc the Fax reserve team has been mostly run via a £25k donation by the supporters club. Clearly an SL reserve squad would cost more (with some full-time players), but without our reserves we'd defo not be taking to the field against Leeds, HKR, Salford and Widnes over the coming weeks.

We had very successful academy sides previously, but certainly for us, this didn't provide anything more than a training ground for SL clubs to come calling.

Each to their own is what I say. It works well for Fax, but boy we'd like some more teams to play.

I think this is the key point. One of the failings of Franchising was it just seemed to have a single template that all clubs should adopt. This smacks of the same. Let clubs innovate and try different approaches that suit there own circumstances, and succeed or fail based on their decisions.

If your club isn’t running a reserves team and you think they should, then the RFL are being supportive. Fans who want this need to direct the question to their club. That’s where the power is.