Fair enough that the game needs to put finding young players to go professional, and be in the system early, as a priority.

You miss the point about Fev, back then there were so many quality players compared to today that there was no need to ship in half a dozen or more failed Aussies/islanders per club. This isn't the world "moving on" it's our game having to take in Aussie rejects as we are so short of quality.......

It's actually the other way round - we are so short of quality BECAUSE we take in "Aussie rejects."

Cas is a great case in point - brought virtually no-one through in the last 5 years, yet have been stacked out with endless names from Down Under.

The RFL have moved to ensure on productive academies get central funding - directly addressing the problem you highlight - yet you think certain clubs taking central funds to line the pockets of Antipodeans is a torch worth carrying.

Further - these changes have been known about for a number of years - said teams have ages to sort their houses out and properly invest in their home-grown pathways.

Fair enough Mate, but weren't the failed Aussies brought into Cas's first team because they were actually better players than the best of the academy lads??

Or are you saying that if Cas had promoted their best academy lads to the first team squad and persevered with them giving them game time they would have matured into better players than the Australian rejects??

Cas's feeder age groups have always been there or thereabouts at the top of their competitions, so they clearly had talent - that they were not brought through the the first team suggests the latter, and points to a lack of...I don't know, "commitment", to the development systems.

Of course, it's easier for Wigan to bring George Williams through, when he's surrounded by players they had.

The RFL action now is about changing that system and culture, and ensuring clubs put 100% into producing their own players in the future.

Thank you.

So do you feel that it is very fair and correct to deny Castleford an academy, on the grounds that they followed a policy of maximising overseas imports in the squad, as against giving first team chances/places to young players that would be the last part part of their development - but possibly at the expense of results??

I go back to 2012 when Cas played more of a home grown team under Ian Millward and consequently lost nearly all their games and lost many fans as well before Millward was pushed out when the club faced relegation. In came Powell and "ready made" overseas players were then pursued and maximised in the squad? (and maybe even quality senior English players being brought in blocking academy ladsas well?

In summary play the best team you can find of quality, established and experienced players and just run an academy to pay lip service.....

If so...... given Castlefords performances, crowds and results this certainly justified ignoring the academy?? Now that Cas are being pushed on this Powell is off to Warrington where there's the money......... No coincidence?

Academy = an institution of of higher learning and excellence.

You have quite clearly described an academy that is not fit for purpose - of course they should not be receiving ventral funding for it.

They now have the chance to get their house in order and make a better application the next time round - they can still run an academy, but won't receive central funding.

This process is not new news for the clubs - it's been known about for a few years.

For the RFL to leave 2 spots unfilled, just how bad must Bulls, HKR and Cas's applications have been? I wonder whether the resolution will be those spots now being filled, but with the clubs on a shorter contract; maybe reassessed in 2 years??

I find it amazing they didn't even come out to visit any of the clubs or speak to the people running the academies & community game first hand. They have not looked at any facilities, etc. It is purely based on a document proposal. And we will never know how bad any clubs application was as no feedback has ever been given, not even to the clubs rejected! Below is a quote from the statement from Rovers...

'At no stage before yesterday’s announcement, nor during the process, has the club received any feedback whatsoever on its application.'

Site visits and interviews were never part of the process. They would introduce subjectivity, instead of the objectivity of written, comparable applications.

I find it amazing that club's, who knew the application process, didn't put the required effort into making a compelling case for their inclusion.

It smacks of entitlement; a misguided assumption of their own importance.

FAIL.

How do you know what effort anyone put in? Have you seen all the applications in full? Nothing has been released on any clubs application as to why it failed or passed or how much 'effort' has been put in.
TBF for me it's a moot point anyways, running an academy should be a requirement not an elitist entitlement.

How do you know how we have ran or invested in our academy? From a Hull KR point of view we hired (invested) John Bastian with a proven track record in bringing youth through as this is the direction the club wants to go in, but they are not been allowed to. We were part of the city of Hull academy from 2015-2019 so whatever FC are taking credit for producing in them 4 years, we should too as the joint venture. We got a solo licence in 2019 but Covid hit for our first full season in 2020. We have had the rug pulled from under us before we've had chance to run, invest and produce as a solo entity.

Basically, we are willing to invest, we want to run an academy and produce players but we are been told no you can't. It is at the RFL's feet if participation numbers are so low (playing numbers are actually up by around 42% in Hull).

Because you failed to meet the criteria for an academy licence! If you had met the criteria, you would have been given a licence. There are 2 spots unfilled!

Bastian has a good record - HKR less so; it's HKR applying, not Bastian.

Defo feel it's harder for you coming off the back of the CoH venture though.

Instead of being "willing to invest", they should have, you know...invested.

If you are sure that the HKR academy is actually well run and well funded, then the blame falls with whoever wrote the application, as they have clearly failed to evidence it.

Maybe they thought they were guaranteed a spot and didn't give the process due respect?

Again, with 2 spots unfilled, if the club's missing out had been anywhere near meeting the criteria, they would have been given a place - that they haven't, speaks volumes about their applications.

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.