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.

I already said they are both important. The difference to what you are saying is that Leeds offer nothing of what they used to currently. This development, and opportunity, is not what it was here.

Infact you got it spot on with James Graham, and exactly why we had so many good youngsters, because of that very reason. And the move away from that is why we don't get the best these days, and why good ones do go elsewhere. Cam Smith took a lot of persuading to come to Leeds instead of Cas, and the good work of one individual at the club.

Whatever you tell us gotcha I doubt there's a club which offers a whole package as good as the one Leeds does.

I don't think Him's post listed random things clubs might offer-it was a list of what we do offer, most of which is not on the table at other Super League clubs.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me about a junior player we let go who has gone on to have an outstanding career and caused us regrets.

Didn't we have the Burgess twins at U16 level?

Possibly yes. I'd give you that one. Albeit it would be a unique situation with effectively an inside view of both clubs

But how much did they also pay for Learmonth and his salary. Currie could easily have tuned out the same.

btw His agent is/was "show me the money"

I seem to recall Baldwinson/a family member calling the offer they got from Leeds "derisory" when they were explaining his decision to go to NZ......fast forward a few months later and he comes back with his tail between his legs and accepts an offer from the same club, which more than likely won't have been any different to what they previously offered.

For all the talk of players could end up going to Saints or Wigan, it does often now seem to be that they head to Wire.......I wonder why???

You said there was no difference between the two. When there is. Money is a part of the whole deal, it isn't the deal itself. The monetary offer can be lower if you offer more in the rest of the deal. And vice-versa.

So was it the money or the whole deal that got the likes of Sinfield etc here? You've already said we're not offering the rates of pay we used to. If we're also not offering the rest of the deal how did we get Cam Smith?

The fact of the matter is there was only really Leeds, Saints and Wigan (with the odd raid from Bradford) vying for younger players in the past, now we have Leeds, Saints, Wigan, Warrington, Huddersfield and NRL clubs sniffing around the most talented British players. We're not going to get them all. Nor did we 15/10/5 years ago. We got a few talented players and put faith in them alongside some talented existing players from other clubs. That seems to be what we have right now too.

What you really need to know is how many didn't sign for Leeds that could have done but didn't like the terms, the set up etc. Daryl Clark would be an obvious one. Leeds haven't produced a real top quality youngster since Watkins - that would suggest they aren't getting the intake correct?

So what have Leeds got to offer that is so much better than the likes of Wigan/Saints/Warrington?

.

What have those teams got to offer more than Leeds, given that the 'path blocked by the golden generation' thing is coming to an end?

I also thought Sutcliffe and Ward and to an extent Singleton were touted as quality youngsters?

That wasn't the point, the point that was raised that Leeds had more to offer than any other club - what is it. One thing it isn't is better coaching. The facilities maybe, playing with better players - as Leeds don't appear to win the academy championship these days that's also a no. Path to the first team - you can't say either. Ward's path to the first team isn't blocked by a golden generation player its a very average ex NRL player.

On Cameron Smith you are potentially talking about a Sinfield/McGuire/Watkins quality of junior with the best will in the world you would not put Sutcliffe/Ward/Singleton in that category

I've 4 lads from my U15s who are with leeds and others that are with Fev and Wakey. One clear message leeds did send at the point of invitation was that players who were offered a scholarship with leeds and turn it down wouldn't be offered again further down the line. I can see why they do this as they want juniors committed to the desire to play for leeds and in a sense the players have to chose leeds as their opportunities in the future would decrease.

Just a thought on this offer of education as part of the 'package'... Although obviously good for life after RL / if they don't make the grade, might there be a part of this that is about making sure the kids don't bail out?

If you sign a youngster on a deal that gives them a 'free' 3 year uni course, however much they might get fed up or their head turned by other clubs, are you actually subversively tying them to the club as presumably if the leave, their education ceases too?

Plus as well, I suspect Leeds Beckett will be subsidising the degrees rather than the Rhinos 'paying' the costs - what with Leeds Beckett being one of the sponsors. It means Leeds potentially get people more committed and staying longer on potentially lower wages, whilst Leeds Beckett also get extra attention as 'another' young Rhino studies part-time with them and eventually graduates.

Nothing wrong at all offering the education - very good actually - however I had been studying part-time at university in Leeds the last few years and part of the downside in doing so was that once I had started, I'd have massively shot myself in the foot from a financial and time perspective to then give it up to move elsewhere before finishing the course itself.

I do mean 'scholarship' as in the playing and coaching sense and not education. I'm not certain of attached educational offers as I'm sure this concerns players at 17+. I've worked with players who were on with the 19s at Leeds who did not pursue additional education but know that leeds are focused on developing the person and academy players are also exposed to the 'real life working world' in order to prepare them and develop an appreciation of their privileged position.

I guess I took your point and looked a couple of years down the line - talking about 'education' more when they get to 17-18 though. That was also with the comment about '£20k from Wakefield, or £10k with everything else from Leeds' that someone else made before.