But the current crop are not being shared and that starting 13 in the future would be just as likely be 7 Hull and 7 Rovers anyway so the chance of getting 3 or 4 of the best youngsters in Hull has not really changed.

There is no right and wrong here, all I am saying is that I think you should wait to hear more before kicking off about it. Not you personally but fans in general.

Both teams need the support of the fans at this critical point of the season, seems silly to be losing focus now. This will wait until November when we are all bored

Not going to go through all those points, its a much simpler question for me.

FC are already bringing through more young talent than KR, far more in fact. It does seem a lot of them struggle at senior level, again that's a coaching issue (LR?). But Some of them look like future stars, Shaul being an example.

So what are KR bringing to the table that will improve on that? That's the bit I can't get my head round, all I see is that in future it's likely we will have to share that young talent. KR may not be a championship side, but their current academy is far inferior to FC's, ask the RFL.

If have a business that makes £10 and you have one that makes £5 and we merge them so we get £7.50 each who's the winner?

Any way as you say, it will certainly keep interest up after the season has finished.

You make valid points and as I don't really follow Hull KR that closely I may be wrong but I am pretty sure they have brought about 7 or 8 players into the first team in the last couple of seasons and apart from that Latus kid, who I remember thinking was perhaps a joke that I didn't understand, most of them seem to do ok and play quite regular.

We could argue/discuss all night if this crop are better than the Hull players who have come through and again about those that are sat waiting, the fact is I dont think it is as one sided as you say.

I would also take with a pinch of salt anything the RFL are involved in. I can well imagine Hull FC deserve to score more than Rovers in the points system but I stopped worrying about anything the RFL put their mind to a long time ago. If it is as clear cut as scoring points there is a big problem. The only thing an academy should be scored on is how many quality players come through and play in SL or the Championship in my opinion.

I like your analogy at the end but how about this one.

You have two businesses that have running costs of £10 each per year.

Business A) brings in about £7 and is running at a loss.
Business B) brings in about £5 and is running at a loss.

These companies merge with an annual running cost of £10 and bring in £12.

Is that not better for everyone involved including the shareholders?

It seems to me the club are agitated that they've not been able to control how this has been portrayed. They certainly seem rattled.
The thing is, the spin is getting old now and the fans are tired of it.
The fact AP is surprised at the reaction shows me he doesn't really get it.
The clubs should be concentrating on engaging schools and the amateur game to bolster playing numbers from a younger age group.
Instead they've gone for short termism cost cutting and tried to dress it up as the best way forward.
Like I said on another thread, Rovers vote for the marquee rule, then scrap their academy to piggy back ours.
The club will plough on regardless, leaving supporters to vote with their feet next year.
Sad state of affairs in what should have been a special year.

How do you know that the new Academy is not going to be set up to work tirelessly with the amateur clubs, schools and colleges to make sure that the talent pool is nurtured from the very beginning and helped in every dept?

Unfortunately you don't, none of us do.

Everyone is jumping the gun and presuming Hudgell and Pearson are on the make or the take.

Plus, any academy players that do make it to the first team are soon scapegoated or stripped of their confidence then shipped out.
It's the pathway into the first team the club should be addressing and concerned about, but that would mean employing a competant coach.

No ones jumping the gun. The club have not had time to get their story straight and they're flapping about. Fans are not stupid saps that believe anything that emerges from James Clarks keyboard.
Pearson is getting into bed with an individual who would gladly put FC out of business if he could. And we're supposed to embrace it all and say nothing.
The fans are sick of it and the club will find that out when it's season pass renewal time .

I seem to be one of the few that find this a good thing.

Let me get the first thing off my chest: the "I don't want anything to do with Rovers" attitude is incredibly short sighted and smacks of cutting your nose off to spite your face. If there are benefits to our club from working with Rovers, then work with them. If we both get stronger, so what? I want to win trophies, not out do Rovers at all costs.

Secondly, "the way Leeds do it" by "getting into schools" is a good tactic in principle, but when you consider Leeds have a population three times the size of ours with no competition to share the fruits of their labour, you see the difference in strategy. Yes, there are local West Yorkshire clubs, but then they also have huge population areas themselves that they can target. We don't. Why would/should Hull FC invest a great deal of money into getting into schools only for Rovers to pick up the fruit of their hard work? Surely a joint concentrated effort from both clubs would be more efficient and spread the workload evenly?

If both clubs can work together on youth development (that being but only building up participation numbers but also athlete development) instead of against each other, we will both succeed? In fact there are a number of ways I'd like to see the clubs work together, particularly marketing. I loved the derby posters idea. If you look at the number of billboards City have around Hull advertising fixtures compared to ours, you can see where the sports fans of this city are more likely going to pay attention.

The real rival is football, not Rovers. Are we competing for the same fans? Not really. New fans, maybe, but then they're likely to go with the club most associated with them (depending on where they're from or who their friends/family support). Why not work together to bring out the dormant rugby league fans of this city (of which there are thousands) and target them rather than both fight over new fans?

Our rivalry on the field is unique, I'd never want it to go away. It's a huge selling point for both clubs. It doesn't mean we can't work together in other areas to improve both. Neither club are producing world class players. Something major needs to change. Throwing a contract at any old amateur to fill the academy is not only a waste of money but also not benefiting the top players at that age group. The best get better by training with the best, being trained by the bbest and playing against the best. Give it a chance.

Hopefully this new merged academy will also be heavily involved in schools development also.

Frightening really.

^
THIS

I see Peacock is behind the merger but when asked if this would work between other clubs , His answer was no , Kind of a strange answer . If it wont work with other clubs then why Hull .

Sharing facilities, non coaching backroom staff - Yes
Sharing coaching methodology/ideas, gaining better understanding/knowledge to advance the youth system and from that the 1st team & looking at ways to get more kids through so we have a greater pool of potentials- absolutely
Creating better links and more opportunities with local amateur clubs - for sure,
Cutting costs through sharing - Yes, no problem at all, in fact I'm surprised a facilities share hasn't being suggested a long time back.
However...
Merging teams to play with one single team, retrograde step, not to mention the massive fallout with regard the whole undermining of both clubs histories.
Merging on the basis of having more money per individual, greater pool of coaches NO, that's not how it works, quality not quantity! We often have some great kids come through, show huge promise, play at the top level for their age and then the transition is non-existant to pitiful with some players falling through the net completely and others working out just by sheer talent & dedication alone, not through excellent coaching!

We have not a single senior coach with a solid background of coaching experience at the top level under their belts and/or with experience away from the club. It's these differing experiences/environments that build you up, an essential part of learning your trade and allowing you to widen your understanding/knowledge base. To adopt certain strategies to cope with X scenario, learning skills from other senior coaches.
IMO the whole coaching set up at Hull is flawed and a 'merger' IMO will not resolve the issues we have.

I also think by using the word merger in itself instead of something less provocative could have lessened the effect even if the end result was going to be the same.
As it is the club have handled it pretty badly, whomever this so called 'blabbermouth' as Monkey Lover refers to them as obviously was in the loop with regard to proceedings. If the club/s didn't have a full plan and detailed information on exactly how it would work why even share it with people whom in reality aren't in the know. Keeping tabs on these things is essential, it would seem clear this person doesn't agree with the outline proposals hence piped up. Maybe a more defined/detailed plan could have helped them see this 'vision'...then again maybe it was just a load of old shiate anyway.