Do you disagree with the ratings? They seem about right from my albeit limited knowledge of the clubs.

Our acadamy have improved drastically since Pearson took over

Cas's is undervalued significantly. Should be a two. It is constrained by money and facilities but still produces decent players and is significantly better than some of those rated above it.

Really ? I think you owe Cas a point tbh.

Have you seen any of our academy games? Or the new facilities for the youth players?

What I do see is every year you still seem to be taking someone who has come the Cas youth set up.

I have no doubt, If we had a cash rich owner, Who could improve our facilities, We'd have the best youth set up in the league as we are in a great catchment area, I think the feeling is. The amount of home grown players in the Cas team, And dotted around SL - We should probably have gained a 2.

Clubs who haven’t got at least a two should be embarrassed. Its an absolute disgrace to be getting a 4.

Smokey TA in predictability shocker

Is this the first time that the academies have been graded and if so, does this indicate that the RFL are starting to think about criteria options for the future of SL

According to the document it's the 3rd year they've been graded, though I can't remember seeing them before.


I wouldn't go quite that far. I'd say SL clubs who get a 4 should be embarrassed and Championship clubs with a 4 or SL clubs with a 3 should be very concerned.


I think the problem for Cas isn't the number but rather the quality of the players, with question marks over how much "value added" occurs in the Cas academy.

Castleford vs Hull a few weeks ago had 16 Castleford trained players on both sides. I don't care if Hull provide shinier weights for academy players to train with they clearly are not above us in any way with regards to producing players.

3 really is a joke for us and the hard work we put in on developing talent.

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?