I'll leave it to others to decide why the Hull merged academy didn't work - but it's a fact it didn't work.

Academies are not area based - per se or otherwise.

You're talking out of your .

How do you know it didn't work when you can't articulate why, and have to appeal to others to back you up.

What fixtures didn't they complete? Did they lose most of their games? Did the players go backwards in their development?.

As mild rover says "The City of Hull academy was graded as ‘outstanding’ by the RFL in 2017" so it worked.

Over to you or do you want to "[ileave it[/i"

It worked so well that the clubs had already scrapped it.

If it was working, it would have been kept as a merged academy.

It worked as an eliite academy producing the best quality players possible, and not dragging players who were never going to make it out of the community game and depleting that game. Otherwise it would not have scored so well.

It didn't work for the self interest of the clubs and personal preferences at the clubs, who reportedly just liked "having their own team" so they went back to dragging in many kids that were never going to make it thus affecting community clubs badly.

Read the posts, don't leave out the fact that the clubs preferred to see the kids in their own club shirts to having a stronger set up.

All clubs have swarms of kids that go through their systems and dont actually have a decent chance of "making it", which applies to all sports.
If a club can produce 1 or 2 players each season they are "winning" but, you cant just have those "gems" as it's a team sport.

To suggest that clubs are "depriving the community game" of players is utterly ridiculous and whether those players make it into SL or not, they will improve as RL players and when they return to the community game later on, assuming that they stay within the sport, not only will they be better players, able to share their experience, they will also be happy that they "gave it a go.

The issue is numbers right at the bottom 6,7,8 year old's and RL has to find a way to keep these lads coming into the game.

I am going back a good number of years, maybe 10+. but at one point, didnt London have a record number of amateur players? Like 250K+? Or maybe, total number of kids playing the game regularly, be it at school level or amateur level? Was there no pathway put in place so that some of these kids could have made a career out of it?

OK lets start with "one or two players a season" over a 10 year period Wakefield produce 10 - 20 SL quality players on your figures. Let's call that 15 academy lads from Wakefield playing regular superleague....... Do Wakefield actually produce that number? As people are saying as they check out the Castleford first team squad, there aren't 15 quality players from Cas playing in that side either? It's a handfull if that....

Cas are not "winning".

Your not listening to those who run the game. They say that if several players are taken from an under 16 community club side to go on to academy then there ends up being no Under 17 side at that club when their number are depleted, most of them who go academy pin their hope on making it in the pro academy, but only one or two per hundred kids may make it. the other 98 simply don't go back to their community clubs in any number once they are rejected at 19.

Your old enough to remember the old Classy Cas players? John Joyner, Brian Lockwood, Steve Norton, Mick Redfearn, Bob Spurr, Gary Stephens, Clive Dickinson, Tony Miller, Alan Hardisty, Keigh Hepworth, Sammy lloyd etc? Those Cas teams had international players in them let alone many top quality club players.

Now we see Castleford teams that have to pull in numbers of overseas players to compete and there's usually half a dozen in any SL squad at least.......

The quality player pool here has collapsed big time over the years and the number of kids playing has collapsed not just in League, but Union and Soccer as well

If Wakey or Cas could produce one or two SL quality players a season as you say then they would be laughing but they don't.

Featherstone won the cup with a featherstone born team, how many Featherstone born kids now play Superleague?

OK lets look at Leeds, they set up the academies with Wigan and these clubs are renowned for some great players coming through.

But Lets look at the Leeds squad now. In the top 26 players only a few came through the Leeds Academy and some of them were signed from outside Leeds pinched from under the nose of clubs like Wakefield..

Leeds don't only have to pinch top kids from under the noses of other clubs, but have to buy in seven players from Australasia to try to be competitive despite an academy 20 years old.

Just to be clear.
What age are you advocating professional clubs should take on younger players ?
To have any chance to "make it" they need to be "in the system" as early as is reasonably possible.
To reduce the numbers of elite academies, because we cant sustain all of the community clubs is the wrong approach.

The problem is with numbers at the bottom of the pyramid and this is the issue which needs most attention.

Where we do agree is that without youngsters coming in and without the community clubs, short of increasing the overseas quota's, there is nothing at the top,

The argument about clubs of yesteryear having more hometown players is irrelevant. The world has moved on and despite it's niche appeal, in terms of where players come from RL, just like every other sport, will draw its players from across the globe.

When Fev won the cup, players simply didn't move around as the do these days but, the world has changed.

The problem is not having enough players wanting to play RL, something that will get worse before it gets better, assuming that it does get better.

Fundamentally, if SL clubs dont run their own or, at worst, share an academy, they will be disadvantaged and that isn't right.

In Sunday's win over Hudds, there were 6 Trinity academy products.

Wakefield have at least 14 in their current SL squad.

I believe Wakefield were ranked 4th in the player production list - Castleford were bottom.

When asked at a previous Q&A Mr Carter said he wasn't aware how it is calculated (it's more than just "number of players" - it also measures "number of games"icon_wink.gif = I think the RFL could stop a lot of the nonsense by publishing the list/criteria.

So the critera has been released - rlLinkrl

The 4th clause is interesting as it boils down to "If the RFL don't want you to have one, they can say you can't have one."

Given the financial state of Bradford and Salford over the last few years, I'm not sure they would meet the first criteria.
I'm not sure Cas and Hull KR would meet the 2nd criteria, as hardly anyone has come through those academies since 2016, and in Hull KR's case chose to scrap their own academy because of the lack of players in their area.

Had to giggle at the line in the sham article stating "the decision rankled most in the RL community".

No, it really didn't; the wider RL community see exactly why these clubs were rightly omitted.

Remember, this is about who receives central funding for their future academy set-ups; the RFL simply cannot give money to clubs who cannot or will not deliver VFM from the investment.

The RFL answer to SportEngland in the management of this investment.

I think it's hard to judge what players have com through Rovers academy since 2016, the City of Hull academy ran from 2015 to 2019 so surely both clubs take credit for what has come through in that time? We were then given an elite licence in 2019 on the understanding we had time. We have pumped a lot of our own money into the academy, at the expense of spending a full salary cap on the first team at times! In our first proper year Covid hit and now the licence has been taken away from us without even been given a chance to get started really. Whats most frustrating from a Rovers point of view is we just so badly want to run an academy and bring through youngsters but were just not been allowed to do it.