Focus on Youth : Mon Nov 04, 2013 8:47 am
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?