Me and a friend were discussing the recent spate of young players leaving and we ended up considering whether on a rough cost/benefit analysis investing in a youth system was of any value to clubs outside the top 6.



Obviously we spent more time discussing the Bulls but we also thought of Cas, HKR and until recently Salford, all of whom have produced decent level players , only to see them leave.



We considered the rough proportion of SC needed to run an under 19s plus the staff and facilities costs. We also discussed players like George Burgess who never played a game for the first team and Joe Wardle who played one or two. Not only did the salaries they were paid almost certainly outweigh what we received, the level of investment of staff and resources was wasted - or worse, to the benefit of competitors. I accept the 'figures' we used are pure guesses and merely for the benefit of the discussion



After some time we came to the conclusion that for the 4 clubs mentioned, not running a youth system (I know it's not allowed under RFL rules) would allow significantly greater investment in the 25 man squad and would also remove a pool of players for competitors to recruit.



We accepted the overall damage to the game as the overall player pool would shrink, the fact that it was of itself a very negative and bad thing but also came to the conclusion that the 'focus on youth' as trumpeted since Noble left/was ousted cannot be said to have provided any tangible benefits to the club in light of the likely cost/investment. This is not a situation unique to the Bulls or any coach, CEO etc.



The question is as CEO of such a club and there came a boardroom choice whether to invest a nominal figure of say £50k in kit, coaches, facilities, contract payments in the under 19s OR sign a decent standard SL player what would you do?

Good post.



In the old days if you had a "HANLEY" on your books you were guaranteed a cracking deal should he wish to leave for new pastures,CASH plus 2/3 good players so back then it was worth nurturing young talent and it kept clubs like Featherstone etc alive.Not so sure about the modern way of doing things when you are only getting 100k for top young players as compensation for their contract?

I remember when we sold Newlove,I was absolutely gutted but in exchange we got Sonny Nickle,Bernard Dwyer and Paul Loughlin PLUS CASH,so in hindsight that was a great deal for the club at that time.

For me though one of the greatest pulls Rugby League has is watching a young player grow and grow,watching a Hanley hatch from pure raw talent and such as Mumby come through the ranks,so maybe what I am saying is that you must have a youth set up as without it the game's lost imo.Maybe if such as Wigan want then to steal your player greater compensation sums should be involved and not just the said player getting a large rise in wages.

I've had similar thoughts myself recently; three Burgesses, Whitehead, Wardle Bateman, Larne Patrick, the list goes on and it's dispiriting to be honest .



In truth though, I feel we have to keep faith with the junior set up, even if it's with a heavy heart and big hope that our luck changes soon.

Yeah I think it's important. Wigan and Leeds both built up the current squads from youth when neither were top four contenders.

Thanks for the posts, but neither of you answered the question. Factor in the return of P and R and try and explain why any club in the bottom 6 wouldn't pare down the youth structure to its bare bones considering your best young players will leave anyway and nobody pays to watch under 19s.

I'm not sure that's entirely true but in the context of the sport they were certainly certainly top 4 'wealth wise'. I think both clubs have finished in the bottom 6 once each in SL.

It's no coincidence that the wealthiest sides have the best junior set ups (apart from Hudders).



That's because they can afford to do that.



With relegation back on the menu (probably) there's less incentive for clubs to plan long term when the risk is you could go down in one season.

Short sighted.

I know its impossible to keep them all but a team of



1. Reardon (I know hes not doing much now)

2. Naughton

3. Wardle

4. Atkins

5. Ben Hellewell

6. Bridge

7.

8. George B

9. Mark Flanagan (played there for wests and saints, struggling for a 9 tho)

10. Tom B

11. Bateman

12. Ferres

13. Sam B



With the exception of a scrum half I think this proves even throughout the noble years of not bringing youngsters through we have had the makings of a grand team! I know people say wigan could say many of their juniors are playing everywhere but the difference being they couldnt get a game due to other wigan juniors who were better. I think it proves we should be aiming to bring the young lads through when we can, and to be fair as we have been.

It might be but with the new threat of relegation and possible oblivion a club is more likely to concentrate on the present than the future as there may not be a future if you don't stay up. If money hand to mouth what do you expect?

7 or 8 years ago I'd have agreed without reservation but the evidence suggests that the further down the league and wealth table the club is, the greater chance that what benefit is accrued by investment in youth is not recouped by the club but goes to their wealthier competitors. Is this 'inverse proportion'?



Taken to it's conclusion, clubs in the bottom 2 would be better off by putting 17 random lads in the under 19's and merely telling them where to turn up to get hammered. All funds saved on coaches, kit, etc to be redirected to the first team squad.

when he left and I thought we saw the best of him, to be fair.



Atkins, Hellewell and Ferres are exactly the same as you say about Wigan ie they weren't good enough to break into the team at the time. I'll grant you Ferres was playing fairly regularly but he wasn't first choice.



Bridge was sacked for disciplinary reasons.



I don't think Flanagan really made it even when he moved away, in fact he's moved around a lot without 'making it'.