Think they would have to force this through

Your maths is not what it should be 9/15 *100 is 40%

Its Friday evening. Your team are playing in 2 hours. For Gods sake get off the computer and grab a beer.

You're making me sad for humanity.

I'm on the internet on my phone
I'm heading there now
I'm more of a double vodka coke guy

Better!

Neither, it seems, is yours

Well, actually it looks more like 66% to me. So maybe we'll call it a draw.

You are correct about my maths though. Not my strong suit.

No, 9 is 60% of 15 i.e. 3/5ths so my inaccuracy is the difference 40% would you not agree?

Did Wakefield or Castleford disappear when they were outside SL? Did Featherstone when they were shafted at the birth of SL? Nor would either of the current SL teams you're seeking to combine here.

Are we agreed that 'this mess' is as a result of having two SL clubs representing a small geographical area fighting over the same juniors, the same commercial sponsors and potentially the same current and future fans? Are we agreed the solution is to have one side representing the district?

Earlier you said: 'The RFL won't force the two clubs to merge. They will be offered a choice: merge or get kicked out.'

Where have you heard or seen this? You and others are suggesting one way forward but it's not the only way.



Leeds never merged with Bramley and/or Hunslet but I imagine most of us on here will know of fellow Leeds fans that were former followers of those clubs - I know I do. Families that were brought up to 'hate' (if hate isn't too strong a word) that rich mob up the hill at Headingley who have over time followed the crowd to watch and support the team that represents their city in SL.



Which club do you support, Castleford or Wakefield? How have you got on posting your views on the way forward for their clubs on their forums? I think rather than telling them what they want it might be an idea to ask them first.

This idealistic equality wont happen through merger IMO ..... unless the clubs themselves are willing to buy in to the idea - are they? Are the fans? Would you if someone was suggesting your team were merged? I wouldn't, I'd prefer my club continued even if that meant them having to play in another division. If someone said my club would have to merge or fold I'd rather it fold and start over again from the bottom.




What research has led you to assume 20% won't follow a merged club? And why are you presenting what appears to me to be a relatively small percentage (in light of the monumental upheaval your suggesting) as if it's towards the higher end of expectations.

Having skimmed various threads on the Wakey and Cas boards I'd be surprised if 20% of either set of fans would be happy sharing a ground, let alone merging.

Neither add up to anywhere near 15 years though do they? Nice attempt to deflect.

Also, wouldn't it be more appropriate to measure the gap between Chev's departure and kallum's debut? After all, they can't both play right centre at the same time. That would take that 15 year exaggeration down to two years.

One centre in 9 years with the best junior setup in Yorkshire shows how difficult it is to produce really high quality players in certain positions. If he is the real deal Sutcliffe will be the first half back to emerge from the Leeds Academy since 2003 that is how difficult it is. How you think this set up will simply just produce another Watkins is beyond me?

You also seem to think it is OK for all our best players to go to the NRL because other players of the same quality will emerge - again I respect your opinion but the actual evidence suggests you are wrong.

You also seem to believe that top quality overseas players are overrated and not needed - again we must agree to disagree.

I ask again is the SL a better competition without GB players like of Graham, Burgess, Aston, overseas players like Bird, Buderus, Gidley, Leuluai and perhaps most important the coach talent such as Edwards, Larder & Ford?

Finally on the time gap - are you seriously suggesting that if a Sutcliffe succeeds Sinfield the gap between both emerging will effectively be zero?

You're ignoring the fact that Leeds only need to produce another Watkins when and or if the existing one leaves. I f Ward and Sutcliffe fulfill their potential Nd the transition from Sinfield and McGuire is seamless does it matter that there was 10 years between them? In the preceding ten years we didn't do too badly.
the evidence that another player will step up if Watkins leaves is running around in blue and amber every week. I've already cited several examples. McGuire replacing Harris is one.

Wow, if I was going to call someone out on having maths I'd at least make sure that I was going to get it right myself



if the true gap is 9 years, and you stated it as 15, that is an over estimate of (15-9)/15*100 = 67%

No the gap is the difference between the nine years it took to produce someone and the 15 years I said i.e. 6 so 6/15 is 40% as I suggested? 6/15 is 2/5th i.e 40% not sure where you get 67%

If you take the existing evidence it would suggest the chances of producing another Watkins in the next 2 years are remote. As are the chances of producing another Ryan Hall - he is the only truly class winger that has come the through the academy process since the inception of SL.

The point is Leeds had a golden period of youth development when Sinfield, Burrow, McGuire, JJB came through these are the exceptions a player of the quality of Sinfield took 30 years to happen if you accept he is the best to emerge since Mick Shoebottom. If we let our really top players go they will not be replaced at the same level and the comp will suffer.

You seem to be either shifting the goalposts because you are now aware of your error, or you are completely innumerate.


He was incorrect, your actual over-estimate was 67%.

To which you replied:

Which was even further from the truth. Yes 6 years is 40% of 15 years but that's neither here nor there, it doesn't change the fact that your figure was 67% larger than the true value. Just man up and accept that you are wrong.

The existing evidence would suggest the exact opposite. Hall replaced Calderwood. Watkins replaced Walker. McGuire replaced Haris. Sinfield replaced Mike Forshaw.

Besides, we can get by for two years if needs be until Watkins replacement (theoretical) emerges.

After all, after Chev left in 2006 we had a few guys fill in at right centre until Watkins emerged and what happened. Oh yeah, three straight GFs. In fact, Watkins was injured in 2011 so if was 4 GFs in 5 years.

Sal- We have some real potential within our U19's now and in the Centre position Minns and Harper spring to mind and even Briscoe has done very well there.
that's without even giving Keinhorst the 1st shot at the shirt who would be my choice over a period of time to gauge whether he can do it or not.
Now of course we'd need to see these lads perform at a higher level consistently first and imo at the very least Minns would make it to SL imo.
Then it's a case of the lad playing his own way and cementing his spot he won't be "another" Watkins the same way Hardaker isn't another Webb but talented all the same.
Special players aren't always replaced by like for like replacements but ones that can do a good job in their own right and IF and i hope KW doesn't leave but IF he does it's not the end of the world many make it out to be.
Also imo whther it's 10 yrs etc or not the timescale is irrellevant as long as we have someone to step in when needed.

Chev left in 2006 - by which time he was a shadow of the player that he looked like being and the teams results showed - it actually took 3 years to win a trophy after the GF win of 2004 - so please put both sides of the argument.

The bigger picture for me is the quality of the competition - something you have conveniently dodged. Personally I would like to see Graham and Burgess still playing in SL - as I would class players like Buderus, Lyon, Gidley etc. These guys enhance the quality and competitiveness of the comp. We get bashed by Australia because the depth of talent in SL has been shown not to be there. How letting all the best players go to the NRL, not having any high quality NRL players also is going to do anything but devalue the quality of the comp I fail to see. As usual we must agree to disagree

It is the special players that make the comp - without them you don't have the same level of interest. Having watched the U19s a few times this season I can't what anyone sees in Briscoe - jack of all trades, Kleinhorst will never be a top level SL player - same goes for Minns and Harper. Of the U19s only Sutcliffe and Watson seem to have the potential for top level which is about the norm at junior level - sadly I can't see a path for either given the current first team personnel.

Watkins is a very special player and along with Hall would be the two Leeds players IMO that [i[uwould[/u[/i succeed in the NRL. It's a damn shame Leeds's present coach considers it prudent to use Watkins as a utility player rather than let him command the centre position his talent deserves.... That alone might encourage the lad to go and test his mettle down under (perhaps accompanying the similarly exciting Moon?)

Out of interest Sal how many games of the u19's have you seen and any of them in the last 6weeks because Minns has been outstanding as has Sunley ,Sutcliffe ,Baldwinson ,Harper and Tonks.
Ash Handley and Duckworth have shown to be very good finsihers with the formers defence and pace very good.
As for Briscoe wherever he plays he has a decent game but has picked up a few knocks lately.
Like i've posted on numerous match threads for the u19's no doubts they'd have to be tested at a higher level but they have stacks of potential and are very very good to watch.

Luke Gale looks a OK as a halfback produced by Leeds in recent years.

One important thing to note when looking at our youth development is how easy the path is to the first team. A 16-year old halfback with options as to which pro club they sign for would probably have had severe doubts about joining Leeds any time since 2004 until about now, simply because unless one of our current trio of options leave, there is no regular place available.

The same will always be true for a top side - some positions will be filled by players that no one could displace. It also partly explains why Salford has been able to produce and promote a number of halfbacks - the team has been relatively easy to get into and as soon as a player shows quality they move elsewhere, leaving space for the next youngster. As a result I'd argue that historically Salford might have been quite an attractive club for a 16 year old halfback to join.

OTOH I would agree that there have been positions where the production across SL has been poor - including Leeds.