Again, do you know what the criteria is that the clubs failed on? I've not seen anything released yet and as said before, neither do the clubs. This is the issue, clubs have been told they have 'failed' but no evidence as too why has been produced yet.

I still believe however even in all this arguing, academies should be a requirement and no one should have to apply for the right to run one.

Our record is cack, I can’t deny it. I also think this represents an opportunity to set out in our direction and do something better, free from central advice and guidance - which is usually worse than cack.

However, I’m not sure how clear the precise criteria have been to clubs or for how long. In previous assessments the assessors have gone out to clubs, had a nosey around and made a prospective assessment. With a switch to a retrospective, spreadsheet-based approach (which in of itself is fine), we were always going to be at risk, and our efforts to improve were always likely to be wasted. So, why not just tell us to sod off in 2019? My suspicion is that is because the criteria changed, and it is tricky to adapt quickly - hence the 6-year licence period.

The headline criteria was released yesterday.

Academies should be a requirement.

Everyone should apply (and meet the criteria), if they want central funding.

It's really not hard to get your head around.

I agree with everything you are saying. The 15 clubs who took an interest had 3 years to prepare the academy for application and simply haven't met the agreed, specified criteria.

Lets see what an independent third party thinks when some club go through the appeal process.

The extent to which the club produces Super League players (since 2016) = we was in the joint academy from 2015-19 so whatever FC produced, we produced the same, from 2019 we went solo and Covid hit 2020.

The ability to finance an Academy = We are putting a lot of money into our Academy since going solo in 2019, even at the expense of not spending a full cap on the first team.

past performance on deliver = As point one, given a solo licence in 2019 and only had the 2020 Covid hit season to be judged on.

Any other criteria that the RFL determines is relevant at it's discretion = yeh real specific that isn't it



I've got my head around it

you've every right to feel hard done as every club should be allowed to have their own academy but rather you rant on here why don't you vent your spleen at that dimwit Rimmer, hes the one to blame

If the independent third party justifies the refusal to allow an academy, and points out the shortcomings can the club(s) put these right and re-apply?

Realistically, no.

The decision is based on past performance, which is fine but the past is gone.

If you mean ‘could they do better and re-apply in a few years based on that better performance’, then the issue is that they won’t have an elite academy during that period and so will be unlikely to improve.

It is a bit like under the SL licensing system, when non-SL clubs could apply but it was very difficult for them to compete with the incumbents with their inherent advantages.

Karl Turner, the MP for East Hull has tweeted that he expects a statement from the RFL and Hull KR today, following what he believes to have been constructive discussions.

Thank you, very informative.........

Even though HKR could end up with no academy, one issue here is when a young player does well enough to be signed as a professional I take it he does not have to sign for his academy club? Once at the end of going through the FC academy, is say a keen Rovers fan who has really done well in the said Hull FC academy able to just go and sign professional with Rovers????

Coincidentally, this came up in another discussion I saw earlier today.

Hull FC have a promising young fullback called Connor Wynne who is 20 years old and, as far as public knowledge goes, ooc at the end of the season. It isn’t even a rumour that Rovers might be interested, afaik, just fans looking at the ooc list and wondering. The point was made that because he is under 21, Hull would be entitled to fee if they also offer a contract that meets certain criteria. I’m not clear on who sets that fee and how, but it isn’t an open market once lads are above academy-eligible age.

Another issue might be if a kid is a massive Rovers fan and isn’t too smart about hiding it (I remember hearing Kenny Dalglish tell a story about hiding his Rangers posters when the Celtic scout visited his family

), might Hull be disinclined to invest in his development?

I've already posted that HKR seem disadvantaged by this process, due to having a joint academy for the previous period.

I've also posted that I could see an interim licence being given to HKR, perhaps reassessed in 2 years, instead of 5.