I know a lot about how bulls are operating at the minute and they have just let the majority of the squad go, there will only be 2 of that 24 man squad who get near making it to 1st grade. Homegrown players from bradford area who are quality players are getting ditched and they will come back to bite us i am sure, they are either ditching rugby then or going to another club. Now the bulls are just getting fresh batches of players in every year and most are from leeds or rochdale. Bulls need to retain more youth like wigan, we just let everyone go

It’s difficult to compare like with like as some clubs will benefit from having a large RL hinterland and others won’t. Some clubs will have more money or have a recent proven track record of success at first team level. Some might have great facilities or well developed player development schemes.

Not all are alike so you can’t simply say one is failing and another isn’t without an assessment that looks at all aspects. I think the recent RFL survey attempted to do that.

No sense in penalising a club that gets only a couple of players to first grade if they’ve had to work far harder than a club that has got 3 in without making any effort.

Regional Academies do exist now with Midlands, South Wales, North East and Midlands. However there may be merit in extending this outside the sides that are readily investing in player development.

Reduce the quota allowances and clubs will have no choice

That assumes that all clubs with large numbers of foreigners aren’t bothering with developing their own players.

That’s not always the case.

Take us. We’ve got a good academy. We produce lots of players – we just can’t hang onto them. If we could we’d still have the likes of the Burgesses, Wardle, Atkins, Kopczak, Peacock, Pryce, Bateman, Whitehead playing for us.

Don't have to assume anything, reduce the quota and then they will have to develop their own. The drawback for them is they may get relegated if they don't. If I remember rightly the quota was being reduced until the SL clubs voted to change the academy system from 2 teams to 1 in order to save money. False economy IMO.

2011

At least 8 home grown players.

No more than 5 quota players.

No more than 5 overseas trained players inc quota players.

Rest of squad to be from players trained within same federation.


So how come the quota appears to have increased since 2011 when it was reducing year on year up to 2011

U16, U19 & U23 (with 3 overage allowed) and get rid of the stupid dual reg thing is the way forward so well done to the championship clubs IMO.

A bit cruel on Salford when you consider that in the lead up to Marwan taking over the club, the entire club from top to bottom had already started to disband, with many 1st team players and younger ones already having either been sold off in previous months or told to find alternative clubs as the future was looking like certain oblivion...

By the time Marwan concluded the deal, Salford had missed the chance to enter academy for SL fixtures, so academy side was up against lesser opposition last term and even though our set up was slated by RFL, walked the competition and subsequent grand final..

As for going out and spending loads on players...what else were we to do from what was inherited by Marwan ffs

ABSOLUTELY SPOT ON.

Problem is with clubs like Leeds.

They are happy to use and abuse Hunslet as, effectively, their 'A' team. Hence Barry Eaton, wearing his Leeds Rhinos shirt, sitting next to Brian McDermott at Leeds' matches.

Use and abuse?
If it weren't for Leeds then Hunslet would've gone out of existence. Barry Eaton is paid by Leeds for his services and Hunslet benefit hugely from their relationship with Leeds including use of training facilities, use of Leeds backroom staff, and of course use of some of Leeds players.

How is improving another club bad for the game? It's better for Hunslet and it's better for Leeds players as they're playing at a much higher standard than an u23's or any other defined age group.

To be honest if I were a fan of a championship club I would hate the dual reg thing. It is beginnings of turning them into a feeder club rather than a club in their own right. There is a loan system if SL clubs want to send youngsters out for a season.

I can understand that view. But no-one forces a Championship club to use dual reg. And it certainly does not amount to using and abusing the Championship club who are there by choice. And certainly not in the case of Leeds & Hunslet.

As for dual reg v loan. The problem is that the loan system isn't flexible enough for SL clubs that have limited squads and high injuries. An SL club usually has a first team squad of 25 players. At times this season clubs have had 9/10/11 players out injured and players playing when they probably shouldn't. So have needed to go beyond that 25 man squad.

So do you put your best young players out on loan for the season? If you recall them from loan that's it done, you'd have to renegotiate another loan with the club or another one when you don't need them in your first team anymore or put them back in your u19's. Or you leave them at the loan club and play an inferior player from your u19's who probably isn't ready for it yet, not having played against adults much.

Neither is a good option. Recalling them, if it's only for a handful of games, hurts their development and hurts the loan club. Leaving them hurts your own club.

Basically I think we need a form of dual reg. We can't afford a full, open age reserves team. It's just too expensive, and I firmly believe the NRL system is their biggest advantage over us. Whether the DR is in exactly the form it's in now is debate able. I'm sure there's a way forward that can provide some certainty for the Championship club but also allows the SL club access to their players when they need them.
Maybe a guarantee where the SL club can only use the dual reg'd player a max number of times in the season or where they're definitely available to the Champ club for a minimum number of games?