No, it doesn’t. If you want to search for something to criticise the club for, go ahead, its an entirely worthless endeavour, but its your endeavour to take on. Also ignoring past success and complaining about success that may yet happen seems similarly pointless.

If the thing we are worrying about is that we have only 5 top quality pack prospects signed to long term deals instead of 7, then the only question that needs to be asked is what level of pay-rise the guys at the club should get.

What 'controls' can you actually have in place? You're comparing the Hull/Briscoe/Super League situation to an NRL club based in New Zealand - Its chalk and cheese. If SL teams are coming across and taking our youngsters then we really need to be look at what we're offering compared to them. But when you're talking about New Zealand/NRL teams poaching our players then its an entirely different story as we simply cannot compete.

Errrrr a signed contract would be a start.

OK, fair points. But despite Hull's inquiry, they sure as hell won't have contracted every youngster, the best the could ever aim for is to contract a small "elite" with others being presumably regarded as more expendable. Which may be how Leeds have operated all along, unless you know for a fact that we've lost any youngster(s) we were hell-bent on retaining.

A contract, really? What will that mean?

All we know is a rumour that Baldwinson is going and now Tonks with him. We know further that these two players inparticular had been highlighted as future stars of the team, a lot of development went into them, and they were very close to breaking through. Therefore your point about small "elite" in this scenario would be what we are talking about, and where I agree with you. Your second point again agree, you can not sign up everyone, and that is not what is been talked about.

"If" these two players are going, then the controls Leeds have in place are not sufficient, simple as that, and why it was stated they need to ask serious questions of themselves.

I'm not taking sides here, but having a contract in place should mean at least a greater chance of getting remuneration if the player is poached by the NRL. Bradford managed to do this with Sam and George Burgess, for example.

Tonks was behind Foster and Minchella in terms of the pecking order for getting a run in the first team.

If he goes to the NRL and makes the breakthrough good on him. If he doesn't and comes back after a couple of years to play somewhere else in England, he's not going to be one that Leeds should look back on and wish they hadn't "let" him go IMO.

Not really sure how you can prevent young players going to Australia if the offer is there and they want to go.

I'm lead to believe Tonks has been allocated the 29 short as he has been 18th man in a previous game.

So we not only have expert keyboard coaches and qualified medics, but learned contract management professionals on this forum. How lucky we are! Yes and how lucky to be Champions by chance and solvent despite the amateur managment and coaches. A contract! by jove I wish they had thought of that one.

Does anyone really know if contracts had been offered but refused? Does anyone know if a deal has been struck with Dean Bell for first option when returning? Does anyone really know anything about the real details of any negotiations?

Why do some choose to always take sides against their own club on issues where they have no idea of the facts.?

And that they may do. Leeds will have controls in place and they will probably be quite thought out, planned and structured.....but NRL teams going after Academy lads iwith no SL experience s quite a new thing affecting SL, so what do you do if you're GH? Rip up the controls as soon as you hear about the Baldwinson interest to make sure you keep him.....thats not having controls, that's knee jerking and diverting from strategy and set plans.

If we do lose these 2 players its disappointing but not worrying YET. You have to learn from your failings and you're bound to have them in sport. If people remember we actually lost ESTABLISHED first teamers from the academy in the mid to late '00's. Walker & Smith to RU, Calderwood to SL, Mathers to NRL. In the last few years we've (so far) done a better job of keeping established young players like Hall, Watkins, Hardaker & BJB. In fact the only one we've lost since Smith in 2009 is Burgess and the Burgess brothers situation is a unique one.

We've shown an ability to keeping the rivals away from our established academy players after getting our fingers burnt a few times, their is every reason to think they'll learn from this possible lesson. What they can't do is go crazy and try and go toe to toe with a much stronger financially giant. As tempting as it might be to throw extra money or gametime at 18/19 year olds just to fight off the NRL its got long-term trouble written all over it.

Why don't you read the thread instead of been the annoying patronising twerp as usual. Seriously, if you read it is all about "if". Your crappy points are completely irrelevant to what has been mentioned.

Juan gets my vote ahead of the ever stranger Gotcha on this one. No suprise there though.

Well there is a first time for everything! Agree with this post!!

As you say it's not a worry yet but if the trend continues then its a worry for the whole league. It's a bit of a catch 22 position at the moment though. NRL clearly wins hands down re lifestyle. However at the moment they also can offer more £ with a higher cap. The only way SL can compete is a higher cap which potentially ruins some clubs

Why does SL need to compete for a relatively small percentage of its player pool with the NRL?

There's no evidence to suggest the trickle will become a flood any time soon, certainly not to the point where it needs a reworking of the salary cap.

Because it's not just a "relatively small percentage of its player pool", it's the very cream of its player pool.

But now they seem not only interested in our very best SL regulars but they're creaming off the potential talent as well.

Exacally. IF this continues the standard of play in SL COULD drop. Instead of watching exciting players we COULD be watching teams of Ian Kirkes play each other!

JC-Lets deal with some FACTS IF the Club had "got in first" when the talents of these players was obvious it wouldn't even have been an issue that's the point we are making.
IF we lose both then that is a mistake by the club in some of our opinions and also that of EVERY coach involved with the Acadamy.
What you may or may not believe is that when you attend these regular u19 matches you get to meet people close to the players i.e parents etc and the Coaches involved are always free to chat to aswell.
I know for e.g that the Club could have "got in first" and signed these lads up way before the outside interest became firm and as we now know before a contract was offered to Baldwinson.
All this sarcasm and pathetic sniping is irrellevant in this subject however much you like to "Try and belittle" genuine opinions and debate.

You still haven't answered whether Leeds or any other SL cub should try to compete with NRL sides if the relative levels of pay are so far apart? If Leeds start to pay a whole bunch of 18-year olds way above the odds in SL terms (Baldwinson, Tons, Minchella have been mentioned - at £70k a pop that would be a fare wedge out of the cap on players with promise but zero experience), they'd probably have to let some first teamers go elsewhere.

And claiming that Leeds have somehow done the wrong thing in being caught out by an NRL side actively scouting juniors is just plain wrong. That's never happened before. Nobody would have predicted it. Especially unlikely when you consider that the Warriors have just about the best juniors in the NRL on a regular basis. Even their own fans appear a bit bemused.

Last year we saw a whole bunch of 19-year olds go to Aus as they'd run out of options with SL sides, and clearly preferred to chance their arm in Australia to playing in the Championship. Same will happen this year. Some people seemed upset by this, and yet as far as I can tell not one of those lads currently in Australia is anywhere near first grade.

I was thinking last night about the similar wailing about the 'loss' of Daniel Smith. He's still playing U20s here, with no sign of moving up a level even to open age.

Leeds should not be paying over the odds for academy players. I don't think that is relevant but it was agreed on earlier in thread.

The only thing stated on Leeds part is that "if" they end up going then Leeds would have to ask questions of themselves and change their controls to ensure it doesn't happen again. An excuse of it hasn't happened before shouldn't be a defence, and if they learn from it and change that going forward, won't be.

The issue is that these two weren't your average academy team fillers. They were developed as future stars. If they were regarded that highly, then the controls in place should have meant they were tied down long before others came in. If Leeds then chose to release then so be it, their choice, but at least they would be in control.

Daniel Smith, although in supporters opinion was a mistake, was not the same example. He was released by the club and not offered a contract.

Beyond all the fog I can see what Gotcha is saying. The timing of the contacts exporting on these two ispoor. If they were so highly thought of we should have had them on a longer contact our a contact that gets renewed every time it comes into its last 12 months. If we do lose these players I would hope some lessons would be learnt.

BR-What Gotcha said and again i'll reiterate we could and should have had these lads tied to deals earlier and not at 70k either.
There's also the point that in some opinions mine included that whilst we were wasting a 2yr deal on Kirke and getting Kylie tied down for another year we should have tied up the younger lads first.
The 2 that have been mentioned could be mainstays of our pack for well over the next 10yrs wheras with Kylie its just another year IF he returns from injury with the same impact etc etc and i fail to see what Kirke getting another 2yrs does for us especially when we have Singleton etc who offer more.

I don't think there is any right or wrong here.

I agree entirely with Andy Gilder and others that we shouldn't overreact to the NRL poaching a few juniors and that the club must cut it's cloth accordingly. I also agree that the club has always made the right decisions on which players to retain and release and has a brilliant record in developing and promoting junior British talent (just look at squad numbers one to five), their abilities, ages and contract lengths).

However, I am also of the view that there have been some distinctly average forwards in the first team ahead of some exciting junior talents, that the coach has little faith beyond his 17 and has spurned the opportunity to give games to some of these players and utilize his squad. Had someone like Baldwinson, for example, been given the chance sooner he may have become established (as was happening with Singleton) and as an established first teamer the decision to go to the NRl may have been that much harder.

So, I have mixed views, but won't over react or criticise the club if the likes of Tonks and Baldwinson go. My views on the coaches use of his squad will remain the same and may well be linked to the issue though.

I would doubt it a lot that any of the non-starting 17, including the younger players are close to 70k, no where near based on GH...which careful money management has kept Leeds in the money whilst others have drown