i live in the Wakefield met, and they have decimated the surrounding towns and asset striped all local facilities, so i no al about Wakefield council, but if Wakefield 20 years ago had self financed there new ground or stadium development, like Leeds, it would be done now, but instead wakefield fans cry about Leeds not running a reserve team, like thats the biggest woes of the game.

like luke Briscoe, not good enough for super league to old for academy, went to fev for 2 years layered well learned is trade now back in super league with a 3 year deal, if it was not for dual reg, he would have been languishing in reserves then drifted out of the game.
for the record i have always been a fan of reserve grade specially the under 23 model, but if a player cannot get a start in league one or championship at 20-23 years old and is only playing reserves, then he will probably never going to make it as a pro player and certainly not a super league player.

And a shiny new ground is? Yes, it'd be nice but as someone has previously commented; Wakefield receive financial penalties for playing out of Belle Vue.

Weirdly I didn't see our ground have any impact on where we finished in the league last year.

8th - Catalans
9th - Leeds
10th - Hull KR
11th - Salford
12th - Widnes

(Include Huddersfield and Hull FC if you count the qualifiers)

All listed IMO have better grounds than us yet all finished lower in the league table, I'd say our academy and reserve teams have had much more to do with that than our ground did.

maybe because its the Wakefield chairman spouting about clubs signing marque players and not running an A team, just because Wakefield cannot afford to spend marque money, then using it as a politic tool to bang there own drum. Wakefield criticizing a Club like Leeds is like Saudi Arabia criticizing Britains number of food banks.
and maybe your posts get removed as you often resort to name calling, abuse, attempts at bullying all masked as "banter" and "a bit of fun", rather than coming back with sensible debate or constructive counter points.
for the record i am in favor of reserves but can see the counter argument and understand why some clubs prefer to blood there fringe players in championship.

I'm not getting into the middle of the whole issue, but on the 'players lost' issue, i was at a meeting earlier this year at warrington with karl fitzpatrick, iirc he did say in terms of reserves/academy players being too old, we had found a lot of these players didn't cascade down the leagues, but packed in playing altogether, not even going back to their community clubs to play open age. Therefore the circle of life wasn't being replenished.

I do wonder if thats the same around SL? in the majority?

whoppey doo, so you finished above Leeds one season The then reigning champs and you have one what, as for your academy and reserves, most of your side is made up of players come through the ranks at other bigger clubs, but there is no need for this to be p***ing contest, as my club is considerately bigger better more successful has a better ground more fans more money better player development pathways than yours. but hey its a club and as it does not run an A team.
the A team debate may be a wider issue than needs relooking at but for wakefield chairman to go public and slate clubs for trying to and succeeding in signing world class talent is poor form, and stinks of teddy out the pram stuff, its may be disappointing, but maybe talk to the chairman opposed to it and look at there reasons and look at what can be done to make them reconsider. maybe Leeds would consider sending 3-4 players to play for wakefields reserves that cannot get game time at Fev or super league but too good for academy.

Back tracking and blaming your silly comments on someone else - quality mate real quality.

Some would benefit, some wouldn’t. Each player is different so there’s no perfect setup. A reserve league would have positive and negative outcomes for different young players.....Dual Reg has positive and negative outcomes for different young players.

That’s why it shouldn’t be mandatory because both can work. The ones who don’t want to run a reserves shouldn’t be forced to because other teams think it’s better for them. The only issue for reserves is number of teams yet we keep hearing of enough clubs (7/8/9/10) who want to do it so they should get it sorted between themselves instead of blaming the RFL and others for their failure.

Let’s not forget these club owners are the same ones claiming they can get better tv and sponsorship deals yet they can’t sit down, get a show of hands, see that enough teams want to do it and organise a fixture list.....instead they end up begging the RFL (the same people they boasted they could do better than) to sort it for then by forcing others to do what they want.

How many reserve games did you play and how many academy lads regularly featured in your 17 last year?

I remember in 2016 when Warrington, Hull and Wigan were picking up the silverware and some credited it to them running reserves......yet in 2017 it was Leeds and Cas at the top with Wire and Wigan struggling so League placings aren’t really backed up by reserves or not.

Were have i backtracked, and once again you resort to trying to ridicule when you cannot come back with anything usefull.

Here is your chance , Out of interest what are your suggestions for the academy/ reserves future formats.

Personally i would like the under 16 scrapped and BARLA run district sides up to under 16’s under RFl guidance and elite training program, similar to the college system in NFL. Academy teams should then drop down to under 18’s and then an under 21’s reserve A team with up to 5 over age players. I think thats a middle ground that suits best gives academy players an extra stepping stone for a year or 2 and keeps the late developers a bit more time to mature, keep dual reg as some players development will suit that better.