I agree that the richer clubs being allowed to cherry pick is all wrong, I have recently gone through the scholarship process at my community club. We are located between Leeds and Castleford, yet talent identification staff from Wigan, Warrington, Huddersfield and Bradford can be seen regularly watching players. Rather than a draft I personally think that the professional clubs should have a geographical area from where they can recruit at scholarship level. You cannot convince me that teams need to have kids of 15/16 travel 100's of miles each week, and that there are not lads with equal potential on their doorstep.

I still dispute that having smaller super academies will produce better players from smaller numbers, than more players in the pool to pick from. Perhaps a halfway house is another option where for example Cas and Wakefield share facilities, logistics and their costs but still run their own squads of players.

The problem with having to choose from a geographical area still means that some clubs will be picking from areas with better resources. E.g. Hudds have only about 6 junior clubs in the area- and most don't have a full quota of junior teams. You tend to find that players move from club to club to be at one that can have enough players to even put out a team for their particular age group. Do you then allow them to pick from Batley, dewsbury (both in kirklees) and Halifax- where does that leave those championship clubs. In Leeds there are dozens of clubs. What about hunslet?

No there is no perfect circle that you would radiate from each club, more guidelines areas within which clubs can recruit with overlaps to provide choices. Using Huddersfield as an example, yes they would look within Huddersfield, Dewsbury Halifax and Oldham and if Dewsbury were to have a scholarship they would also incorporate Huddersfield, Hunslet and Wakefield. This would stop the "big" clubs going far and wide to cherry pick.

Selection of a scholarship club for your child is very difficult and to have a choice is essential as you have to be able to create a balance between school, parental commitments, being able to get them to training etc. etc.

We've had bugger all resources at the Bulls yet managed to produce an U19s side that finished 5th last year and an U16s that didn't do so bad either. Bradford isn't exactly overflowing with community clubs.

The more players playing the game the better, but they need quality coaching and a system that doesn't cut them loose too early. In the end I think it all comes down to money.

If you stop clubs going far and wide then you also limit parental choice. There's no easy solution but the way things are set up now means certain clubs have choice and other clubs have less. A draft system would provide a fair platform for all clubs- and better coaching and facilities to all youngsters.

A draft system doesn't provide a remotely fair platform. Why should the clubs who want to prioritise junior development be held back by those who don't? Is it fair to tell a kid from Wigan, who has grown up dreaming of playing for Wigan, that he has to go and play for Salford in front of crowds of 2000 because they had a bad season and they want him?

However, the idea that the only possible reason for the merging of academies is cost-saving is just not true. Looking at Cas and Wakefield for example:

They'll have 50 players combined at u19s level (ish)
The worst 25 players at u19s level definitely aren't going to play Super League
The worst players will take up a disproportionately large amount of coaching time because they have the most deficiencies
The worst players will disproportionately limit the standard of training by providing weak links in drills

By limiting the number of players to 25 between Cas and Wakey, you:
1) Increase the quality of training - less weak links, meaning the best players' skills are challenged more
2) Increase the ratio of coaches to players (unless they fire half of the coaches)
3) Increase the proportion of coaching time/resource spent on players with a viable chance of playing Super League
4) Improve the community game by not taking 25 players out of it solely to provide a team for the best players to play in

Hardly just a cost-cutting measure in reality.

Fax ran a reserve squad last season, and we have 4 of them who are stepping up to the 1st team next season. AFAIK we're running the reserves again next year, but our biggest problem was finding teams to play against. SL teams should be required to run a reserves team. The bizarre thing for us is that our DR club (Salford) are only running a 1st team next year...