I think we all would, but the fans are crying out for first team success and if this doesn't improve soon and fans continue to stop attending games, there could be great consequences than this merger.

I don't think this merger will impact on the amount of players coming through to the first team, I am not convinced that it will improve the caliber of players, but I guess we will have to see who coaches the players etc, before that can be seen.

I don't want this thread to veer from the topic in hand, but as far as first team success I don't think recruitment of one top player should be/is the best answer. I think other changes could have more impact.



We'll have to wait and see. I just think that the main issues we have with producing young players are not actually addressed by this proposed solution.

I've no idea what it costs to run an academy, but £20 on the cost of a season pass would probably bring in another £100k, money well spent, I would have thought.

I'd bet the majority of those who have signed the petition either aren't passholders or would refuse to pay the extra.

Transport, kit etc are still costs, but ones that most amateur clubs are able to pay. A properly marketed academy team, with players sponsored, a donation system and a small price to attend the game for species would cover it.

False hope? I don't believe it does. An academy player isn't full time and has plenty of time to carry on their studies, plenty do it. No player should be under any illusions that a SL career is a given. I don't see that as the clubs fault.

Leeds manage to offer much higher level of engagement with schools and amateur clubs than either of our clubs, and they manage to do it in a city three times as big, by themselves. Is the financial gap between us that big that they can afford to spend 3 times as much at Foundation level than both our clubs combined? Or are we cutting corners?

I fully agree .
We have players [Feka] going in to schools, but we should have a player as a rep at all schools in the area.
Even the under 19's could do this help coach the under 13/14's one player to each school.
This way not only help get more players in to the game at grass route level but helps with future supporters .
If I was a teacher and i have some one not picked for the new academy who I thought good enough think would put doubt in my mind and happened again I would just give up so then you would loose a team, through a blinkered attitude.
Thats what is wrong with the joint academy system.
Might save short time cash but long term do more damage than any thing done before.

I should think there will be involvement at foundation level, and the failure to engage outside of Hull is precisely what should be addressed.As was mentioned earlier, it's a RFL initiative on a country (or should that be European) wide basis, so it's likely to receive funding from them I should think.

As I said, if it's resourced properly, and succeeds in bringing through more Super League standard players then I'm all for it. If after a suitable period, it is deemed not to be working then it'll be time for another rethink.

Also as Dave K has said, What makes everyone so sure the dobbins academy is so poor. Of all he players mentioned, by far the best in the Super League era, Wilkin, has come through theirs. IMO.

I'd also bet that a lot of them don't go to watch the academy side.

Speaking from my own experience of viewing both clubs, I don't think the KR academy is poor, but they have struggled to attract certain players (even KR fans) because of multiple reasons.

They have good coaches and my lads have been in to both set ups and the feeling among them and a lot of others is that KR sessions were more enjoyable and you were made to feel more a part of the whole club.

Seen a lot of people mention schools but for me this isn't the way to go, some very poor standards, teachers who don't know the game coaching or aren't event sports people. Kids made to play for 2 year groups if they are good and that leaves them shattered when they come training with their amateur teams. They don't have to do half the stuff that community clubs have to.

Agree about your points on schools.

Leeds (sorry to bang on about Leeds, but I know a lot about their setup) use schools as a precursor to amateur clubs, rather than as well as. The Foundation organise after school sessions in partnership with the amateur club in the area, they get a player or two down, Ronnie the Rhino & all that lot. They run this in 2 or 3 schools, the coaches from the local club are there, speaking to parents etc, and bobs your uncle there's a new team.

That's their tried and tested way of increasing participation, not with school teams playing as such, but by using the school as a vehicle to help and even create amateur clubs, and engaging with the wider community.

The other part of the jigsaw is the terrific coaching resources the Foundation has.

Whilst the Hull clubs are in schools and what not, they're obviously not doing enough. Looking at the RFL Club Locator, outside of Hull there's one junior side in Scarborough, a couple South of the River, one in Beverley and one in Keyingham, that's it!

The problem is, I believe, the fact that Leeds, and the other top four sides, have been winning just about everything for the last 10 years.
There is a significant amount of extra monies associated with this success, which is in addition to the Sky income.
It makes investment much easier when this extra money is coming in, and can't be spent on players' wages because of the cap.

Good points, ETP is meant to be aiding this but it need some good partnerships to make it work.

Attract them in schools but feed them to the amateur clubs to help populate the game.

Then back it up with coach education to help up-skill coaches and therefore players too

One of the biggest problems I see with a merged academy is how the team set up and the playing ethos they adopt. Wigan are held up as the shining light of academy rugby and they set this up that the same plays and techniques are used right throughout the youth set ups and into the first team. This enables a player to more or less shoe horn into the first team when an opportunity arises. It may be a step up but in essence its the same play book.

Who will dictate this to the academy, The Hull teams play very different brands of rugby (whether this is intentional or not is up for debate), but Hull play a power based defensive structure, Rovers a more free flowing mobile type of game. What will the academy play?

What if a player makes the step up for a game and then comes back down for a spell, is he the contracted to the club he played for in that game, is the academy there to keep a player fit whilst he's on the fringes?

To be fair our Under 19's play a very good brand of rugby, certainly better than the first team (Although that has been better since we have both our half's fit and playing)

here's an interesting one just a couple of days after Coach Wane stated referring to our new merged plans 'We won't be merging with Anyone" it appears there is a break away forming with some Clubs who appear to be about to introduce their own A team type competition next season which is designed to give some over 19's a game but which will also have to include no doubt some of their under 19's. Do you think Hull and Rovers will be one of the 'other super league clubs' mentioned. On a personal note I don't think they will! www.newsnow.co.uk/A/782931583?-4338:2393:3

here's an interesting one just a couple of days after Coach Wane stated referring to our new merged plans 'We won't be merging with Anyone" it appears there is a break away forming with some Clubs who appear to be about to introduce their own A team type competition next season which is designed to give some over 19's a game but which will also have to include no doubt some of their under 19's. Do you think Hull and Rovers will be one of the 'other super league clubs' mentioned. On a personal note I don't think they will! www.newsnow.co.uk/A/782931583?-4338:2393:3