Watkins almost goes back beyond 5 years now I would argue.

Ward was meant to be, which I guess shows the very best at their age group doesn't necessarily translate. He has 'made it' but I would argue due to a number of reasons is nowhere near fulfilling expectations.

Sutcliffe looks the part at times but has plenty of development to do.

I'm sure there are many others who have been touted as the next big thing (Aston Wilson anyone?) who haven't made an impact. The club will have lambasted for not giving them a chance yet few have gone on to even be very good SL players.

I guess my point is that until we start getting it massively wrong I'll trust the judgement of the people who've been doing this successfully for years.

But thats largely to do with the fact we've had this 'golden generation' around......which simply won't be around in 3 years time or less in some cases.

Given also that we don't look like a club that will go out and spend big to replace them all, then actually if you're around 16/17/18 now then now is the perfect time to be on the cusp on the first team. When Peacock and Leuluai go ahead and retire then Mulhern and Baldwinson chances look better here than if they were behind the likes of Amor, Walmsley, Masoe at Saints.

Who are the U18s players over the last 10 years who have been touted as "best in class". I can think of Sam Burgess, Kyle Eastmond, Watkins, Bateman. Are there any who've done a Richard Gunn and *not* made it?

I seem to recall Rogue's Gallery, a poster who has never shied away from decrying Leeds youth development, once describing Stevie Ward as the best player of his age group. He's now a steady Super League player but would I break the pay structure to keep him? Doubt it.

The pay structure work. It's proven. It is not a bar to retaining the right players with the right attitude (Hall, Watkins etc). Juniors can commit long term within it (Golding etc). At the end of they day if young Smith is the type of player whose sole motivation at age 16 is to play for whatever club offers the biggest contract then talented or otherwise does he fit the ethos of the club.

Of the 29 players named in the 2010 England Academy squad (so arguably the best 29 players of their age group in the country) there are around half a dozen holding down regular first team places in SL/NRL at the moment - Tommy Makinson, Brad Singleton, George Burgess, Adam Milner, Ben Crooks and Matty Russell.

That squad included the likes of George Elliott, Liam Hood and Jared Stewart from Leeds all of whom have dropped off the SL radar. So even under systems where juniors come to clubs much earlier in their pro development there's still a sizeable drop-out rate in terms of making progress to even playing at first team level, let alone going on to become a superstar.

And none of those still in Super League would be worth breaking the bank for.

Again some good points - is the current structure fit for purpose? the circumstances are very different from when it was first introduced. The team is now in decline as its key players age - how do you arrest that decline either spend large money on average NRL players or invest a little more in the very best youngsters.

If Smith is that good he will thrive in any top 4/5 clubs, they all have a good record with youth. Why should he take less money to stay at Leeds - what can Leeds offer him that Saints/Wigan/Saints/Warrington cannot?

George Burgess - whilst not in SL might have been quite useful now - maybe he wouldn't have had the opportunities at Leeds he has had at South Sydney.

Being on his doorstep for a start off. Did he grow up a Leeds fan like some of the players in the current squad?

Doubt it. He's from Cas (Daniel Smith's brother and Tony Smith's nephew).

Very, very difficult to tell how good a kid will be at 16. All you can do at that age is keep learning and keep doing your best. I find it very silly to start employing agents and looking for money at that age. Still, some kids these days involved in sport seem to have a very high opinion of themselves, and that's not just in RL. My lad has basically given up rugby for the moment to concentrate on swimming and boy, do you get some egos from kids 11, 12, 13. By the time they are a little older that tends to go because most drop out when the bubble bursts and everyone else goes through puberty as well. The kids that make it have talent and a work ethic that puts other sports to shame.

How come Kevin Sinfield signed for Leeds can't think either of those criteria were important to him.

At elite level you need to make decisions based on cold hard facts and try and cut out emotion as much as possible

Kevin Sinfield signed for Leeds because we offered the best deal at the time, as did Chev Walker. Both of these were the highest rated individuals in the country at the time of their respected offers.

This model was imperative in why we have just come through the era we have. Why we moved away from it, was because we already had the players in the first team. We should take a step back, and repeat what we did so well. Sign the best youngsters we can.

Would seem sensible, particularly as the quality we might otherwise have signed from down under's no longer an option.

Whilst not playing for Leeds, what happened to Lee Crookes lad? One minute the most exciting young centre in British Rugby League and the next minute..........whoosh, where's he gone?

Money would be low down the list of things I'd discuss with a 16 year old. If that is his motivation I'd shake his hand, wish him well and give him Marwan Koukash's number.

I don't know the answer to your question David but I guess GH had the same conversation wit Ashton Golding very recently and Kallum Watkins before that and he sold them on something. Whatever he sold them, they bought in. If a kid won't buy in, he won't buy in. Jordan Baldwinson didn't buy in, he took the extra cash from NZ Warriors. Maybe we're lucky to have gotten him back, though by all accounts he looked very poor at Bradford last year.

He's signed for Parramata. He's never been the same since Gentle pulled a Tony Smith and played him in the CC final injured.

Regarding bursting the bank for U16s, there was a huge prop on the books at Leeds a few years back, Mick Learmonth. He was being touted as the best front rower of his age group and Warrington offered him big money and he signed for them, much to the chagrin of one or two on here. He's now on a one year deal at Huddersfield. You'd think if he was as good as some seemed to think 3 or 4 years ago he'd still be at Warrington?

I've been told GH shares that view and has said that to one or two of our U16s in the last few years.

You have continually quoted Sinfields Grand Final speech about players able to earn more away, but bought into the success and wanted that more. That is not debatable, that is a fact what Sinfield said, and a true one.

However, those same players as juniors that stayed with the club and gave the club the success, were only there in the first place because they were offered the best deals as Juniors. This allowed the club to gain later by paying them more as youths, by having the best talent to develop, and installing the ethos they have today, which put medals first.

Why is it therefore wrong to repeat that same model?

Were those youngsters offered the most money or the best deal? There's a difference.

The value of a deal isn't just in how much the player is paid.

A similar thing happened with Ben Currie when he signed for Wire. He played Wigan and Wire off against each other. In the end Lenagan showed his agent the door. I'll leave you to guess who his agent is.

Offiah, or Howes?

There isn't a difference. They are both important. And again something we have moved away from. We have not given the same deals for quite a while, monetary or other. Watkins was the last time we did it to entice over the Pennines. But yes Sinfield and Walker were offered bigger than your average players monetary deals. We need to differentiate between decent players, and exceptional players.

With Cam Smith from what I have heard he is not motivated by money at this stage. However, he does back his own ability, and knowswhat he can achieve. The way Leeds currently work, they will not move further with him until later in the year. If they stick to that, they will lose him, and not to someone necessarily paying more.

Only on Friday morning, Jamie Peacock was speaking at a school giving a motivational speech about his career. He happened to mention that young players shouldn't try to rush things, as it will come if you keep working. When someone mentioned Cameron Smith, as he is well known to a lot of these pupils, he openly admitted, well he's an exceptional talent that if treated right will play for his country at the top, and probably at a young age.

And therein shows where the difference is. Lenegan wouldn't take the risk. Yet last year Currie probably wasn't even on half the salary Wigan were willing to pay Pettybourne. I know which player I would rather have regardless of the salary. Only one club lost out there.

Yes. There is a difference. The money paid is part of the deal. Not all of it.
For instance:
Wakefield offer a player £20k and Leeds offer £10k.
Just taking the money into account the player would obviously choose Wakefield. However all else isn't equal. Leeds might offer a longer contract. Leeds might have better training facilities and a better system. Leeds might offer such things as university degrees. Leeds might have a history of rewarding loyal players. Leeds might offer more support and a more professional environment. Leeds might be able to offer the opportunity of playing at a higher standard and in the big games when he's older. Leeds might treat the player better.

In this case the value of the entire deal from Leeds might exceed the money paid by Wakefield.

When James Graham was a youngster he almost signed for Leeds because he was so impressed with the setup and with how Leeds treated him. It was only his affection for Saints and, crucially, the travelling he'd have to do that led to him signing for Saints and not Leeds.

The whole value of the deal is the issue. The money, whilst important, is only a part of that deal.