I 100% do but the problem is that there probably aren't enough players to make it competitive nor it appears is there the will.

So a Championship team working both as a competitive club in that league and as a feeder club for a SL team is probably more cost-effective and competitive. However the chances of that ever happening are low.

When I say feeder club I'm only suggesting a small number of players who are signed to the parent club, say 6, or otherwise, that would rob the Championship club of its identity and be self-defeating. It would effectively make them a reserve team and that's not what I want, I want somewhere that players who are not yet SL can spend a few years developing in a good environment. Essentially they stay SL contracted players bit say 50% of their wages paid by the Championship club, beneficial to both clubs and stopping potential being lost.

At the end of the day, it's just my thoughts, the real problem is that there simply aren't enough youngsters playing RL or indeed RU anymore. Like any other resource, when that happens re-cycling has to become an option.

I appreciate your thoughts entirely, and it's a well thought out strategy which deals with the issues of championship clubs becoming "A" teams

This is my understanding of how the academies are funded - I'm happy to be corrected if someone knows more.
The RFL is in charge of academies - funding them, assessing them, licensing them. But, the funding the RFL doles out comes from SL TV contract money which is transferred over from SL, rebadged and handed over to the clubs which have academies. Mainly SL, but now down to 3 non-SL clubs.

A couple of questions. Only licensed academies can receive central funding. Is there anything to stop a club setting up an academy if they can afford it without central funding?
Academies are another point where responsibilities/funding are shared between SL and RFL. Could the RFL fund academies without SL financial support? Important question if the next TV deal is 25% less than the last one.
Could SL assess and license academies if they took them over? Would SL have any interest in non-SL academies in this case?

Well thanks for the interesting post. The listing of the monies provided by the SKY contract showed £17.8M paid by SKY for the SL clubs [i"coaching and charitable foundations"[/i so it seems that the money to run academies is paid for by the clubs from their own funds? Thus clubs can choose not to run an academy like Salford choose not to if they don't have the money. AFAIK Superleague has an element of control of the academies in that they appear to be able to veto an academy if they do not see it having any strategic worth.

Strategically SL see academies in London and Newcastle important as they underpin clubs important to widening the footprint of the game, conversely they have knocked on the head the ideas of academies 10 miles down the road to an existing academy, again IIRC.........Not sure they can stop a club opening an academy but if it isn't allowed in the academy league then there is no point as there is nobody to play.

Notwithstanding Hull having two acadenies, then combining and i think splitting again

Thought Northern clubs didn’t need academies these days as they just nick young players from London?

From the Widnes announcement:

“Current Academy licenses across the sport are due to expire at the end of 2021, and it has been indicated that Super League membership and the ability to draw players from non-heartland areas will be integral to successful reapplication.”

This reads as though SL will not allow non-SL academies from 2022 onwards. I assume by license they mean permission to run one not just the funding that goes with it although not sure from the wording if non-heartland Ch and L1 clubs will be allowed to continue.

I don't know if people agree with me but for my club Bradford, the idea of telling us we can't have an Academy would be beyond belief. The single shining light in our years of disaster has been our ability to attract and develop local lads, plenty of which have then become established players, some at SL teams. Do we really want to shut down a proven entry point for young lads to enter the professional and semi-professional game? I really hope its not quite as black and white as that Widnes statement suggests.

It would be utterly bizarre for the game not to allow academies, wherever they are situated.
I dont see a problem in them needing to be licensed, in fact this is a very good idea - hopefully to ensure minimum standards etc.
The game is short of players and this situation is likely to get worse in the short term, with contact sports being heavily affected due to covid.
"We" should be encouraging RL anywhere and everywhere, not closing doors for those willing to invest.

Agree 100%, if someone (or a group of someone's) are happy to fund it, the coaches are suitably qualified and vetted, it is to be encouraged.

A few years ago Bradford,and presumably the other clubs,were given 100k from the RFL towards the costs for running academies. Just like some clubs were NOT permitted to run reserve sides,some clubs were not permitted to run academies. Para 2 (g) for the 100k bit - https://www.rugby-league.com/article/39 ... n-bradford

A few years ago Bradford,and presumably the other clubs,were given 100k from the RFL towards the costs for running academies. Just like some clubs were NOT permitted to run reserve sides,some clubs were not permitted to run academies. Para 2 (g) for the 100k bit - https://www.rugby-league.com/article/39 ... n-bradford

Go steady, Academies only drain existing young players from community clubs in their hundreds. That can lead to amateur clubs having to disband what's left of junior and youth sides. Players are then lost to the game. Then when most of the academy lads are rejected after a season or two they generally don't go back to the community clubs and more are lost.

The SKY contract provided £17.8 million to pay for the charitable foundations via the RFL, These foundations do not run academies, they encourage youngsters to take the game up in the first place. Thus the pro game promotes the game to youngsters and gives them a pathway to become professionals via amateur clubs then academy. then pro for the very small number that make it.

For me the Bradford Academy was protected because it worked.. It produced. The Salford academy was shut by Koukash. but Salford were not pressed to re-open one. I assume this is because Salford lads can choose to go to such as Wigan Academy. Hull clubs ran a joint academy as they felt Hull only needed one joint academy which was accepted. But now it seems they are running their own again which could mean come 2022 one rule could be all clubs must run academies to be in SL.

So the Bulls were passed over to keep building the business up, the team up and keep that academy going. Meanwhile Leigh will act as stop gap, unless they manage to not come bottom....

Gary Schoefield has Wakefield to come bottom next season. so maybe Leigh and Salford would need academies 2022 but it seems pointless

The phrase "[iThe ability to draw players from non-heartland areas will be integral to successful reapplication[/i". is puzzling???