Championship clubs obviously would get a little more leeway, but if they have pretensions of SL, a 4 is still a disgrace. A 4 isnt needs a bit of work, or a ‘getting there’ score. Its basically ‘e’ its not having the right members of staff, not having enough members of staff, not having the right quality of staff, not having the right pathways, not having good enough facilities.

There are comments in there which are outright telling us that some clubs are neglecting youth development to such an extent they are failing their young players, kids are missing out on a career in RL because of lack of investment and quality at their club. That really should be unacceptable to all of us.

We're sitting 7th out of 14 teams above teams with a 2&3 rating. So much for rating systems!
Was it done by the same person who gave Bradford their SL license rating just before they went t*ts up?

That would depend if you thought that youth development was about results at youth level or preparing and blooding youngsters, ready for a career in RL.

For example Hudds recently beat Leeds 56-16, however Leeds had Sutcliffe, Minns, Mincella, Foster, Baldwinson involved in the first team, which team has been successful at youth level there? The one which won by 40pts? Or the one which had 5 18 year olds involved at first grade level?

Not happy with that score for Cas Tigers . Thought we would get a 2.

oh dear.

Surely the measure of a good academy should be the number of players that go on to play regular SL rugby, not whether the "students" are happy.
Results are everything.
Its like judging a good university by the colour of the walls and number of desks that they have, rather than the grades that are achieved.
Of course a happy environment helps but some of the modern measures are not from the real world !

Couldn't agree less.

Welfare of these young lads counts for so much. An academy is about teaching these guys not only on the field, but in off the field behavior and helping them make the right decisions for their career.

Ok then let me ask you this question. If you were to choose only one, which one would it be?

1. Have a good youth setup which looks after the kids but languish in the bottom of SL
2. Have a successful first team, with a poor to average youth setup

Not all teams can have what the likes of Leeds and Wigan have. They have many income streams which allow for both which aren't available to all clubs.

if you have 1, you will earn 2.

Its no coincidence that the clubs with the best youth development are the most successful

And vice versa.

Chicken. Egg. Money.

The two shouldn't be mutually exclusive.

Struggling to see how Wakefield have earned the same score as Castleford.