[Bullseye]

Re: Ryan & Bentley : Tue Jul 04, 2017 9:38 am  

Mike Cooper and Ben Currie are the only Warrington academy products that have made it to the highest level recently that I can think of.

Remember John B was at Warrington a while too (98-2013). Cooper and Currie were his proteges.

Re: Ryan & Bentley : Tue Jul 04, 2017 11:32 am  

Bullnorthern wrote:

And I'm pleased Chalmers has made a firm commitment to continuing the Academy next year regardless of survival in the championship or relegation.

My view of the comments from Chalmers about the academy and a reserve side is that they see an opportunity to build a team around the academy products, leavened with experienced players, that will form the basis of a squad for the long march back to SL. There's already a few such players that are both good players and prepared to leave it all on the pitch, obviously r and b, Peltier gives it all, etc.

[Bullseye]

Re: Ryan & Bentley : Tue Jul 04, 2017 11:48 am  

The challenge will be (as it has been for a while now) to keep the academy products for long enough to get the club moving in the right direction before they go onto SL clubs.

Re: Ryan & Bentley : Tue Jul 04, 2017 1:33 pm  

Why could there not be a rule in place that at least 5 first team players (for example) have to have come from the club's own academy?

Re: Ryan & Bentley : Tue Jul 04, 2017 2:08 pm  

debaser wrote:

Why could there not be a rule in place that at least 5 first team players (for example) have to have come from the club's own academy?

Probably because some clubs (Salford for example) don't have an academy. So they wouldn't even be able to bring that rule in for at least a few years to allow for teams to get the academy set up, and then produce players from it of a reasonable age to play first team (i.e. not 18 year old having to play just to satisfy the criteria, kinda like they did in a different way with Bradford...)

Re: Ryan & Bentley : Tue Jul 04, 2017 2:11 pm  

HamsterChops wrote:

Probably because some clubs (Salford for example) don't have an academy. So they wouldn't even be able to bring that rule in for at least a few years to allow for teams to get the academy set up, and then produce players from it of a reasonable age to play first team (i.e. not 18 year old having to play just to satisfy the criteria, kinda like they did in a different way with Bradford...)

Well surely that's the point, if they have to do it then they will. Had it been a rule for sometime, then Salford would have an academy already...

Re: Ryan & Bentley : Tue Jul 04, 2017 2:12 pm  

HamsterChops wrote:

Probably because some clubs (Salford for example) don't have an academy. So they wouldn't even be able to bring that rule in for at least a few years to allow for teams to get the academy set up, and then produce players from it of a reasonable age to play first team (i.e. not 18 year old having to play just to satisfy the criteria, kinda like they did in a different way with Bradford...)

Agreed, could maybe look to introduce something like that gradually? I.e. start with 1 and gradually increase it over a period of time. That way teams have a while to start focusing on an academy and not throwing average players in who may not be good enough for SL. That'd be detrimental to the quality of the league and could reduce viewing figures, thus leaving clubs struggling financially.

Good idea in prospect but as I think it'd need to be introduced slowly, the RFL would probably end up scrapping it after a few years knowing what they're like.

Re: Ryan & Bentley : Tue Jul 04, 2017 4:01 pm  

beefy1 wrote:

Butterworth played his junior rugby at Stanley Rangers I think. Sharlston have only recently set their junior section up.

I agree entirely with what you say in your post. The long and short of it is that the Bulls aren't as attractive a proposition as they used to be for young lads, so they have to find some rough diamonds from somewhere. The fact that players are getting a chance of first team rugby could see more wanting to join, but I fear that the club will become a stepping stone.

So sharlston are actually starting to put structure in place to join conference rather than just moaning about getting turned down. It would be good to see them in the confer nce with the right structures

Re: Ryan & Bentley : Tue Jul 04, 2017 7:02 pm  

RAB-2411 wrote:

Good idea in prospect but as I think it'd need to be introduced slowly, the RFL would probably end up scrapping it after a few years knowing what they're like.

That's exactly what I was thinking. Yes, it could be introduced so that in, say, 5 years, you have to have so many academy players in your team. But 5 years is likely to be the very minimum it'll take before it can be brought in, and the RFL are really not good at sticking with these kind of structures. It seems they change the reserve/academy system every couple of years, so a 5 year plus plan doesn't sound possible for them.

Re: Ryan & Bentley : Tue Jul 04, 2017 7:09 pm  

HamsterChops wrote:

That's exactly what I was thinking. Yes, it could be introduced so that in, say, 5 years, you have to have so many academy players in your team. But 5 years is likely to be the very minimum it'll take before it can be brought in, and the RFL are really not good at sticking with these kind of structures. It seems they change the reserve/academy system every couple of years, so a 5 year plus plan doesn't sound possible for them.

When did they scrap rules about having to have a certain number of homegrown players in squad?. Remember it used to be 7 or 8