The homegrown player debate is an odd one. For instance, Wigan are quoted as being one of the best at bringing through Homegrown players and if you look at the numbers of ex Wigan academy players playing in SL first teams this cannot be denied.

Where this falls down is when you look at the fact that a lot of these players had to leave Wigan to get a first team chance, so is it Wigan who developed these players or is it the follow on club who did it.

Personally I think it should based on number of English (home national) players in a squad, whether developed or brought into the squad. Surely the development of Enlish players is the main criteria along with maybe a youth / community point for helping develop schoolboy type initialtives to allow the game to develop at grass roots.

Good post. The problem is that all clubs will (if the RFL ever ends it's allowance of quota dispensations etc) have 20 British players in their 25 and 8 homegrown through their own academy. Some clubs like Wigan due to their size and level of investment will be churning out more players than they can realistically accomodate in their first team squad and will be a source of non-homegrown talent that other clubs (and the British sport overall) will benefit from. Others will bring through far fewer, include only a couple of ho egrown players in their 17 and just comply with the basic requirements. Question is whether the RFL think that what Wigan do, in terms of investing in the development of British players that ultimately benefits other clubs is something that should be recognised as part of the licensing system.

The other way it could be done is that teams who have a number of their own youth players even if they are no longer at that club playing in SL or SL and the Championship (Not all players make the grade through no fault of the clubs making) get the point.
If a player is top notch and is poached or turns out not to be the unbeliable talent the club expected its life and it happens but the club have still put in the time and effort bringing the player through.
The only problem I can see with this idea is that some players will have more than 1 club claiming them as there's.

Excellent idea.

I was looking at it slightly differently in that although Wigan academy seem to do some stirling work with the young players, the 1st team (especially lately) seems to overlook them and instead has opted for imports. Ainscough was SL top try scorer in a poor Wigan side early in the season and got dropped for Roberts and can't get a look in now. Tompkins has been 'lucky' that Smith is injured and has stepped up to the mark.

If a team took a punt on Ainscough and turned him into an International then surely they should get the benefit of being recognised as the team who developed him not Wigan who cast him aside.

In effect if wigan get the plaudits for bringing these players through then surely they're just benefitting from being lucky in having a few good players born in their catchment areas.

No offence to Wigan, this is only an example and I'm sure others fall in to this bracket.

But the counter arguement is a player like Jon Wilkin.
Rovers did the ground work until he went to college.
He left as he wasn't going to a hull college/uni and signed for Saints.
Would he have still been in the KR first team?
You bet your he would now should KR get some plaudits as you put it for helping develop a GB/English international?

It's a difficult point to measure for sure. Saints seem to have it spot on in that from the outside it looks like they focus on fewer young players but the ones they bring through are close to SL standard from a very early age. It works very well for them, but arguably they provide more quality but less quantity to the British game than Wigan. Will be interesting to see what the RFL do, but needless to say it will be a while until they publish the criteria which will no doubt be ambiguous.