Example:
London Skolars U16 and (mix of u15s) are really enjoying their RL, they're coming together nicely as a "team" and as a set of mates. Six of the team that played so very very well at the stoop 2 weeks ago against Greenwich (basically Blackheath RFU and surrounding decent union clubs and schools with many Kent and Surrey players) had never touched a rugby ball before March this year. Six of this squad made origin at u16 and u15 - Macani, Sutherland,Tawanda at 16s. Cary, Kunoishi and Reed made u15 origin.
Joe Mbu and Mike Reed have got them nicely together and playing 100% for the team, themselves and the Skolars.
A really happy bunch of lads with potential.
So why no Skolars first team influence and suggestion of cross coaching/training to improve and integrate.
Why no Skolars scholarship for say 10 boys or so at this age group at least, why no club grandees watching the games, why no first team management watching the games (take out Joe here) then looking to coach better play?.

The path way could be so much smoother, why do Skolars Championship squad have to wait for quins' not quite made it boys, to play infrequently in Skolars championship teams and so on. At least struggling at the bottom with your own home bred really local boys would be better, maybe not? I was expecting a seed change in performance at this level with dual registration etc ...patently not working for Skolars from a results perspective as they struggle on flying the flag.

As a rugby league club in London, Skolars can provide the best overall league player pathway, for one reason alone, 90% of boys that play for the Skolars have little or not much of a union background, so their pathway can generally stay a league one.
Everywhere else apart from maybe Medway and Hemel can quite easily be classed as teams made up solidly of union boys who play league for fun in the summer, these players life pathways are quite simply decent union club, county, A levels, university rugby, then back to top class union or very decent union clubs. Perhaps an over generalisation but i bet many of you reading this ....will recognise the situation,

We're missing a trick here........and while we're missing a trick so is LondonRL in putting so much time and effort into union boys that will never progress in true league ranks?

Anyway food for thought?

My thoughts entirely, the best prospects will be the working class kids who by default have no local union clubs. If the resources were put into these areas, not sexy I know, we would be able to compete with the north in five years. If union kids want to play great, but I doubt if they will stay. But then again SL has never really been tried in a solidly working class borough in the capital, and before anyone says it. Charlton has Greenwich and lots of leafy areas.

So Feltham/Hounslow and Brentford are not working class are You insane.

Brentford was working class.....I moved there, it went up a notch

Super League was never at Hounslow, and was at Brentford for 3 years, not nearly enough time to put down any sort of sustainable roots or gain any sort of presence in the area. Super League has been pretty much exclusively at the Stoop, which is probably the worst possible part of Londo for a pro RL team.

Brentford is in the London borough of hounslow.

You just cannot get a decent glass of Chardonnay in a solidly working class borough.
This is important.

Charlton may well be in the borough of Greenwich, but the same borough has areas like Woolwich and Thamesmead is near also - these places are a long way (geographically and economically ) from leafy areas like Blackheath.

Matt Meek and Will Lovell who both regularly turn out for the U18's are both from a Union background. Meeks was "signposted" by Sarries whilst Lovell played union from an early age to college when he was picked up by Quins RL.

I suppose we'd better stop letting those "POSH" union types playing league?

No, they are very welcome, the more the merrier!