: Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:18 pm  

More proof that we have the junior development. Tom Armstrong will make his debut on Friday. Potter must be confident to throw him in at the first game. He looked good against Wakey in Wello's testimonial so he should do well.

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:24 pm  

No1_Saints _Fan wrote:

More proof that we have the junior development. Tom Armstrong will make his debut on Friday. Potter must be confident to throw him in at the first game. He looked good against Wakey in Wello's testimonial so he should do well.

What position does he play?

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:29 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

only in the way that money makes everything easier, all clubs have the funds to do it, and to do it to the level leeds and others do, its just some choose to spend it on other things,

the reason leeds do well in this aspect is because they have employed dedicated, skilled, and high quality people, who arent paid massive amounts of money,

Such as?

I think you seem to be missing the point that Leeds turn over millions more in comparison to others and so can afford these things. Some clubs (such as Hull KR) are trying to build up their business and increase their turnover so they can use this extra cash to pump into the junior sector. All clubs do not have the same funds to spend as others. They get the same funding from grants, etc. but that is different. Hull KR do not have the same money to spend on juniors as Leeds Rhinos.

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:38 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

what are these facilitys you speak of? is it some new fandangled Leigh thing?

over here in Leeds we invested heavily in our training facilities, and also pay some high quality coaches,

it is just luck however as to why we do well in youth development,

after all, if its not luck,you might have to admit someone has done something well

Do coaches improve when you pay them more money ?

Or do your well paid coaches get to work with lots of the best paid juniors in you're expensive facilities

So yes if you increase the amount of numbers you start with and increase the amount of money you can offer them , and the amount of money you can offer to a higher number of coaches per player [ not forgetting your expensive grass and cones ] then with a bit of luck a high profile club will produce more better quality junior RL players than another club of lower standing

So we seem to have a reccuring theme here ?

MONEY

And how do you get money playing RL ?

By having a successful 1 st team that brings in gate reciepts and sponsorship

Chicken and egg springs to mind

4 seasons ago HKR ditched thier academies and concentrated on the 1 st team

So maybe the chicken did come first this time , and given time i'm sure it will lay some eggs

: Wed Feb 11, 2009 9:23 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Leeds arent bankrolled by millionnaires, they do it, and they make a profit most years

they are a well run profitable business, they arent beholden to banks or sugar daddys

Hasn't always been the case. And while Leeds' good fortune to be the sole representatives in Super League of a large and affluent city (and sharing it with one feeble soccer club) does give them chance to invest, other clubs aren't n those circumstances and so face more of a struggle to build an equivalent scouting system. And this is before you get into service areas etc.

Much can be done with hard work, but not every club has the same flat track in front of them.

: Thu Feb 12, 2009 12:08 am  

Out of interest is there too much fixation with English jnr's? Lets face it Int RL has and will always remain second fiddle to the club comps. England/GB play one tournament a year (if lucky). We get to see England in 4-8 games. We get to see our clubs (who in reality 99% of us care alot more about) for 30 odd games ayear.

Do i want my club to be succesful or am I happy to see my club not be succesful (at least in short term) but England have the choice of more players? (A debate that is raging in soccer as well)

As said the counter argument to this is that the most succesful clubs at the mo are those with most jnr players in them so maybe there is a counter argument over the longer term.

Would I rather see a poorer club comp in the hope we unearth more talented English players eventually? An interesting question.

Also are the structures underneath the SL clubs good enough to achieve the desired outcomes? Is Junior RL from ages 5-15 set up right meaning there is enough talented kids around for all SL clubs to be signing 20 high quality academy players at 14-15?

: Thu Feb 12, 2009 12:28 am  

JB Down Under wrote: Would I rather see a poorer club comp in the hope we unearth more talented English players eventually? An interesting question. People on here will tell you that they prefer to see young Brits. The reality through the gate is a competitive team is a priority if the club is to prosper. The emphasis should be on getting more kids playing the game for fun at a young age. I taught at a school in London, where this guy and this guy both went. I have no doubt that both could have been exceptional RL players, but because the school only had never had a history of RL (or RU for that matter) they were never going to play anything but soccer - even if I could have persuaded them to play, their soccer clubs wouldn't have let them. However, once RL was up and running at the school, there was a bit of progress. A younger lad who told me RL was boring came along and played, got spotted by Rob Powell and ended up playing for the South and being part of the Quins youth structure. Get lads from the big metropolitan areas of the country considering RL as a game they'll enjoy, later a career option, then the scouts from all clubs will have more talent to recruit.

JB Down Under wrote: Would I rather see a poorer club comp in the hope we unearth more talented English players eventually? An interesting question. People on here will tell you that they prefer to see young Brits. The reality through the gate is a competitive team is a priority if the club is to prosper. The emphasis should be on getting more kids playing the game for fun at a young age. I taught at a school in London, where this guy and this guy both went. I have no doubt that both could have been exceptional RL players, but because the school only had never had a history of RL (or RU for that matter) they were never going to play anything but soccer - even if I could have persuaded them to play, their soccer clubs wouldn't have let them. However, once RL was up and running at the school, there was a bit of progress. A younger lad who told me RL was boring came along and played, got spotted by Rob Powell and ended up playing for the South and being part of the Quins youth structure. Get lads from the big metropolitan areas of the country considering RL as a game they'll enjoy, later a career option, then the scouts from all clubs will have more talent to recruit.

: Thu Feb 12, 2009 1:07 am  

gutterfax wrote:

Some worried heartlands clubs idea of how to attract young local talent....

I know they do things differently in America but when has there ever been 51 days in a month or 51 months in a year!?

: Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:17 am  

billie joes red hair wrote:

I know they do things differently in America but when has there ever been 51 days in a month or 51 months in a year!?

it's a picture of The London Broncos Chief Financial Officer writing a cheque for the Inland Revenue in 2005

: Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:18 am  

Wellsy13 wrote:

Such as?

I think you seem to be missing the point that Leeds turn over millions more in comparison to others and so can afford these things.

They do, and the also turn over a profit, having invested all this money into a cost centre,

How come leeds can do this, yet other clubs cant, even though other clubs are making a loss? Are leeds just sooooo much better run than these clubs? Do these clubs have some intrinsic to them that means they will never compete with leeds? Or are they just spending money elsewhere

Some clubs (such as Hull KR) are trying to build up their business and increase their turnover so they can use this extra cash to pump into the junior sector. All clubs do not have the same funds to spend as others. They get the same funding from grants, etc. but that is different. Hull KR do not have the same money to spend on juniors as Leeds Rhinos.

They certainly have the same money to spend on the first team squad! Maybe some cuts could be made there? Maybe it would have been better sign a couple of youngsters than giving Stanley gene another contract? Maybe it would be better to get a couple of quality 16 year olds than keeping Rhys Lovegrove?

Your arguing on one hand that clubs like HKR don’t have the money and they aren’t choosing to spend it elsewhere, then that they do but they have chosen to spend it on the first team!

You also forget that Hull KR don’t exist in a vacuum, them spending more on the first team at the expense of the juniors and bring in more overseas players so they can finish higher in the league, means the teams around them need to spend more money on the first team, at the expense of the juniors and bring in more overseas players so they can finish higher in the league, meaning even clubs who can bring in these youth players, wont because they then risk losing out to HKR, finishing lower than them and not being able to ‘drive’ their business, in effect we are rewarding the clubs who don’t invest in youngsters by allowing them to invest in overseas players, then defending them for it, and punishing the clubs who do invest in youth by making it harder for them to introduce them,