1 season in the last 11 is a fairly skinny definition of "time" Coupled with 700k parachute payment for the 2002 season, I should think they did continue with youth development!

Beyond signing promising youngsters, training them properly and providing foundation, academy and U-21 teams for them, what sort of startegy or structure are you looking for? By every measure available to me, it looks to be progressing reasonably well, albeit from a poor starting position.

You are right, it was only 150k parachute money.

rlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2001/sep/08/rugbyleague.wakefieldtrinityrl

I'm scratching my head as to where the fig of 700k came from. Perhaps that was their salary bill for the 2002 season when they became the 1st lower league team to run a full squad of full timers.

Either way, I would dispute the term "lip service" without any evidence to support it.

Yet Castleford have kept faith with using local players despite shuttling between divisions and have brought through Westerman, Shenton, Owen, Huby etc and are actually playing them regularly in the first team. The question is how many games Esders, Watts and Spaven will get in total this season if commitment to youth policy is as robust as you suggest.

The true test of a youth set up is how many make it to regular first team action. At youth level Rovers have gone through umpteen coaches since they got promoted in a way that suggests they have not thought enough about the appointments.

Continuity is important to a players development something sadly lacking at the club at YD level. It is true to say they have some decent youngsters at the club (as do most SL clubs) but the continual upheavel of the coaching staff will do nothing to bring them on.

In other words 'Rovers are trying to find the right man but seem to be struggling to find him'.
Now if we are only paying lip service to YD why would we bother?

Because you have to in order to meet the SL criteria.

There is a whole world of difference in "shuttling between divisions" - 2 years outside SL in total, and 12 consecutive years with no Sky money. The right time to judge Rovers youth development will be the 2nd round of franchises, when the kids who are playing academy level right now are filling 1st team slots.

So you are now saying we are trying to improve it then?
Surely if we have a team in place for YD why would we change it all the time unless we want it to improve?

Thats not true it can't be true all the teams with years of SL money say so.

It would appear that changes in managerial structure = "paying Lip Service" In that case, my company have been "paying lip service" to making a profit for the last 5 years. I best tell the shareholders!

No.

There is a world of difference between having to do something and wanting to do it.

If Rovers had any real idea what they were doing at that level they would never have gone within touching distance of Lee Crooks let alone give him a two year deal. On top of that both reserve team and U-18 coaches have chucked it this season.

Yet, strangely, both reserve & U-18 teams have shown significantly improved results compared to last season.

Progress appears to be measured in staff turnover now, nowt to do with results on the pitch then?

Ah I see so a club making mistakes on recruitment is not wanting to do something?
I hear after looking at this thread hudge is on the lookout for a crystal ball as apparetly that is what you need to improve YD as mistakes arn't allowed