That was 2013 wasn’t it? 9 years sort of proves the point. I’m not saying never but it’s not really how either teams recruitment strategy works!

You both have a tendency to suck them up at junior level, it's no wonder they have stars in there eye

Do you not realise that St Helens is only a small town. Wigan, Warrington are triple the size in population. Leeds & Hull are massive cities.

You can also pay less than us (for example) for pretty much any player; we have to pay a relative premium because we don’t offer trophies… which then feels a bit self-fulfilling. Even if we do outbid you, we’re getting somebody more motivated by money than by winning.

The number of academy products in Saints team is genuinely impressive. I don’t want to underestimate all the hard work that goes on behind the scenes. But it doesn’t feel like you’re reliant on it. If you had a few fallow years, you could pay fees to fill the gap and that provides confidence even if you don’t have to do it.

The academy is a good place to invest extra cash, once you’re already spending up to the cap. Diverting money away from the first team makes less sense if you’re not and when your day-to-day SL existence is dreary in a good year and excruciating in a bad year, and those kids whose confidence isn’t ruined will likely leave to compete higher up the table. Fwiw, our club CEO completely disagrees with me and is fully bought in to the Saints model, so I get to be right or happy… if we stay in SL long enough to test the theory. The Rovers fans nearly all seem to be on board with it too. If Rovers can generate enough revenue to field and maintain a strong first team, then a strong academy would be a very valuable complement. Maybe with the ground purchase and potential development, [imaybe[/i it’ll become possible. I don’t think ‘academy first’ is likely to work. We need it all together and for that we’d need an initial and substantial injection of capital that will never see a financial return. On top of what the current owner already puts in.

I would be curious to know how much more Saints have spent on their academy over the last 10 years and compare it with Rovers’ spend. Have we spent much less than you (I assume so, but would like to know the difference) or just spent it much, much less effectively… or both?!

St Helens have turned a second rower from York into the best second rower in the country by a country mile. A guy who is in his mid 20’s. This proves my point about the coaching set up.

All eyes are on Hull FC who are currently tearing up the academy. It will be interesting to see if any of those end up as quality first teamers. I tell you what though, the Wigan academy is currently in the lower end of the table but I guarantee some of that academy team will end up as quality first team players for Wigan

This is a more interesting argument. It’s definitely easy to get into a logic loop of “do the two academies attract the best young players because they’re most likely to become professional players, or are the two academies most likely to produce professional players because they attract the best young players”?

I know Saints put a lot into attracting the youngsters they want. Before Covid the Australia tour was seen as a massive incentive to join. I don’t know how other clubs approach attracting young talent and it’s very much back to MildRovers original hypothesis of money which may be a differentiating factor. I suspect Saints and Wigan spend the most in junior rugby and coaching. The question is is the likely difference more or less than say what Warrington have spent on marquees

I always remember watching a game at Rylands quite a few years with quite a lot of young talent on show. Spoke to quite a few of the players parents and shocked to hear them say we don't want our lads signing up in the Warrington Scholarship we want them to go through the Saints set up because they will develop into better players.

And its still going on today, Saints have signed up quite a few Rylands players because they are attracted to the club culture they might not play for the first team but its their preferred option to be that better player.

All very interesting but it's all down to cold hard cash

Take all that cold hard cash away (salary cap) and the result would be the same Wigan and Saints would still dominate:

This is the saints team with all the money taken away and you can only spend use the academy production line and championship level:

1. Bennison
2. Grace
3. Percival
4 Davies
5. Makinson
6. Lomax
7. Dodd
8. Walmsley
9. Roby
10. Lees
11 Knowles
12. Batchelor
13. Welsby

Because it is a completely different argument that nobody is making, but gets us back to admiring the Saints way?

The Saints way works very well for Saints’ and suits their current circumstances. That’s absolutely fine. If Rovers could afford it, and would see the same sort of return I’d be all for it. Other clubs do have to prioritise though, and when you’re struggling to put food on the table, your wealthy cousin rocking up and suggesting you invest for the long-term and implying you’re profligate or stupid for not doing so can be a little tiresome.

Didnt realise Walmsley or batchelor came through your academy.

1- Hanley
2- Thornley
3- KPP
4- Halsall
5- Marshall
6-Powell
7- Smith
8- Byrne
9- Oneill
10- Havard
11-Smithies
12- Farrell
13- Shorrocks

I know none of these would get in your team as they are not worthy but one must try.

Very impressive as well, that's probably why he said Wigan and Saints would still lead the way.

So we’d all like, hypothetically, to see Saints and/or Wigan run with the same budget for their entire rugby department as Wakefield (for example) do now, for a decade to see how it pans out?

KPP didn’t come through your academy