Posts like this really get my back up. Basically no one can comment unless they are an expect? are you an expect in RL? because your commenting.... its a forum for peoples ideas and discussion. If you have an issue with people being unhappy with how the club is run, they are their opinions and wont be changed by your comment. Because quite frankly, you are not an expect on the person commenting.

My opinion on this (though im not an expert) is that i wish both of the lads good luck in whatever they choose to do.
They have been widely talked up and i would hope they have some loyalty to leeds to maybe not walk away from all the development we have committed to them. However they are out of contract, so they could easily take that as a sign from leeds that they are surplus to requirements and are free to look elsewhere.... IF they decide to do anything, that is.

I agree with this G1

I have watched quite a lot of academy games over the years and don't like to see promising junior players restricted in their development to the first team by squad fillers like Ben Cross and Daryl Griffin, we also have Richard Moore currently at the club who has only been given minimal game time thus far and is a luxury back up player judging by his selections by our coach in the first team prior to our recent injuries

IMO the salary cap spent on these players could have been better utilized over the years by using our own juniors in these squad filler roles?


My only concerns regarding losing our most promising junior prospects and especially at the expense of signing experienced squad fillers too is that it won't be long before we lose a crackerjack player simply because he wasn't given a go and was restricted by an experienced player that also wasn't given a go

If that had happened at any point in the Hetherington era, I might be worried.

It's funny how the recent new contracts for Minns and Sutcliffe, plus the three year extension that Foster signed last year tend to get lost in the discussion about Baldwinson and Tonks.

Some people would have you believe that Leeds system for identifying and retaining talent is broken. I would suggest otherwise, but unlike Pokemon you can't keep 'em all.

AG-Who has said the system is broken?
The point is the 2 mentioned are amongst the cream of the crop and in Baldwinsons case the BEST junior forward at the Club so that in itself is an error on the Clubs part IF he does depart.
Given the age and structure of our current forwards this only adds weight to the mistake aswell.

Yes and I'm sure you'll get 17 sets of parents who think their son should be promoted to the first team. But these parents and coaches (who our employed by GH, who has giving plenty of contracts to academy players over the years btw) aren't the ones who have to run a club or manage a salary cap. Getting their opinion or side of the story is only half of the story and will be quite biased indeed.

Completely missed the point Printer.
It wasn't 17 sets of parents and none were actually "bigging up their kid" either.
I guess some will continue to think the Club can do no wrong whatsoever and throw plenty of put downs and sarcasm about without seeing the actual popint being made.
The fact remains HAD the club got in earlier the other offers would have had to go through the Club first and we wouldn't be the in situation we are now.
SC issues have exsisted for years but we managed to retain the best of what we produced but in this case securing older (kylie) and average (Kirke) players could indeed cost us 2 of the best young forwards we've produced in years and again imo that's a mistake.

Out of interest, how many of the England academy captains over last few years, have not made it?

I know Bateman was captain last year.

To me, comparing these two to just the norm academy player is incorrect, and that is substantiated by how much the club have put into them.

rightly or wrongly Singleton has been mentioned on here for several years. I think I'm right in saying he made his debut about 2 years ago. Now it's clearly when he was planned to come through as he was making the squad before the injuries started. It's baldwinson just a couple of years behind and not as patient?

I think as a rule of coaches have been more reluctant to throw in forwards early which I guess it's down to physicality. I remember both Scruton and Burgess taking a long time to be regulars

Singleton made 1 appearance in 2012 and 1 in 2011. IMHO, he was ready for more and should have been given more (yes, yes, I know the coaches work with him day in day out etc). Also, remember, that over the Easter period our current coach has always utilised fewer players than nearly every other coach in the league. He has left forwards sat on the bench or given them 4 minutes game time. I genuinely believe Singleton could and should have been given more game time sooner than he has and ahead of some of those selected ahead of him.

Had some of the other promising juniors rumoured to be departing been given similar opportunities who knows?

I'm yet to be impressed by Baldwinson playing first team. For those that say it's because he's hardly played, he had a perfect opportunity to prove himself when he came on early in the second half against Huddersfield but didn't. Attitude is just as important as skill.

He may have already decided to go to the NRL and his attitude is reflective of this but if we had signed him mid-season and the offer of the NRL came up as it has now, would we want a player on our books that doesn't want to be here?

He may kick on and become a world beater, he may have already decided that he is a world beater and not develop further. I think he looks to have great potential, but is it worth signing him given the previous paragraph?

I didn't see the Huddersfield game but I was told by a fair minded Leeds fan who posts on here that Baldwinson was all over the place and the coach had no choice but to take him off quickly.

Hardly a glowing endorsement to get into a bidding war with the NRL.

Funny how you always make out it is ok for you to constantly snipe away at the coaches and club but when someone puts a different point of view you object as though these are not "genuine opinions and debate"

You talk about "FACTS" (no need to shout rhinoms) but unless you are fully in the picture with regard to budgets, other negotiations, cap limitations, player ambition/mental strength, greedy players/parents/agents etc you really cannot quote your opinion as fact. Do you know the reasons why the club decide to award contracts to some youngsters and not others? Are you aware of the details of any negotiations that have taken place with Baldwinson & Tonks and if contracts were offered? SL is a business first and foremost and unproven youngsters even with great promise have a certain value and no more. If some make it we should be happy even if others slip through the net.

Meeting U/19s players, coaches and parents is fine but there is a danger you get too close to some and your opinions become emotionally clouded. This does happen to junior coaches.

I am sorry if you feel belittled rhinoms but my comments were intended to be general and not personal. Is it just a coincidence that, whatever the issue, it is the same posters who leap in to take sides against the club? Time may well prove you to be right regarding these 2 players but at this point in time and without full knowlege of the facts I prefer to allow the club the benefit of the doubt.

Indeed. I am not a medical expert nor am I privy to the contract negotiations at the club or to the budget/cap restrictions which is why I choose to give the club the benefit of the doubt. You seem to object to my choosing to be critical of the clubs regular critics.... is my opinion not allowed then? However you could quickly become an expert at spotting negative critics on Southstanders. I hope your back comes down soon.

On Baldwinson, I know he hasn't been selected over last couple of games (whether thats down to his future with the club, I don't know) but his direct 'up and at them' approach would be handy to have at the minute down the middle.

Gotcha, on page 5, posited the opinion that if Baldwinson and Tonks leave then Leeds will have to change their systems to stop "it" (whatever "it" is) happening again in future. The implication clearly being that the current system is broken, no?

Yet this same system for identifying and retaining junior talent has resulted in long term deals for Foster, Minns and Sutcliffe over the last 12 months.

So is it the system that isn't working, or a case of the lad having his head turned by agents or noises from elsewhere?

He's on the fringes of the first team at Leeds. If he moves to the Warriors, is he going to be on the fringe of their first grade? I would suggest not. So he either stays (potentially on less money) and chooses to progress his career here, or he moves on and spends a couple of years padding his bank balance while playing reserve grade in NZ. His call. Whatever the club offers him, he could still quite easily turn his back and walk away and there's nothing they can do about it.

Lets clear one thing up i comment on each situation on it's merits if the Club/Coaches and Players are doing well or doing things i agree with i'm one of the first to say so so it's not ALL negative all of the time.
As for details of the negotiations i know no deal was offered when the Club had ample time and opportunity to do so long before the outside interest.
As for the emotional stuff you mention have you met these people and spent time in their company and do you seriously think the Coaching staffs views are ruled by such emotion when discussing these players??
I'm all for a different pov it's what a forum is all about but 99% of the time you retort with "The club's recent success" or "they can do no wrong".
Just maybe this time IF these 2 young lads leave then the Club have got it wrong and even then my views of retaining Kirke for 2yrs remain the same.
I'm aware of the Clubs success and History especially with how we've retained the best of our Youth in past years which is why in this case i find it so dissappointing because these 2 are the Best especially Baldwinson.
If the offers had come and we'd tied them down and they wanted to leave fair enough that's not an issue for me what is an issue is how long these lads have been "Known to be quality" yet no firm offer from the club yet as we ALL know Kirke is retained ,Kylie is on a rolling deal and for me that's not or shouldn't have been a priority.
The Club have been superb in terms of developing youngsters for the 1st team and retaining them but imo we've got this wrong should they leave nothing to do with greed ,emotion or Parents or having a negative dig at the Club for the sake of it.

AG-I don't think the system is a failure Sutcliffe ,Foster and Minns show that however i do think we've got it wrong should these 2 leave for reasons i've posted.

Time and time again we have posters saying we should not let this young talent go , yet not once can i see where anyone has gone and made Hetherington look silly by starring at another club . Keep going though guys because eventually one day you will be correct and by god will we know about it.

You might aswell say time and time again we miss out on youngsters who go on to be stars at other clubs., even though they were always going to chose other clubs over us.

That's how much relevance it is. Sick of seeing this poor argument spouted at times. Just because a player has gone from Leeds doesn't mean he wouldn't have been a star had he stayed at Leeds.

Clubs do not operate the same systems, and just because we have let players go and not heard from them since does not mean had they not stayed things wouldn't have been different.

You only have to look at Scruton, Calderwood, Walker, and Smith, as typical examples of the argument. Are you suggesting that had they stayed at Leeds instead of leaving, that they wouldn't have been bigger stars. Because if you are it is rubbish, all three were set for massive futures at Leeds, and blew it by leaving.

By contrast, players like Carvell, Broughton, Moore (and in his example actually had the club coming back for him) did prove a point on been released by the club, by trying something elsewhere.

All clubs are always going to lose talent, Leeds probably more than others due to the greater pool they take on. But just because someone was released and not a success does not mean that is proof the club was right.

From what I've seen, Kyle Amor has been playing considerably better than any of our props except Peacock.

If they were that good then better clubs than Wakefield and Bradford would have picked them up and in the case of Calderwood did we suffer from losing him , no because he had his best years with us .As for if they had not of left leeds how do we know they would not have become a star well maybe i do not know but i am sure as hell the management and coaches had a good idea.

You're trolling now, aren't you...

Has GH ever been proved wrong with any of his released players so far?

i would say that Gareth Carvell has come the closest to proving a point since leaving the club.

possibly so Biff , not many more though