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.

Yes and Sutcliffe, Ward and Singleton are all involved I the 17 most weeks now and 2 have final rings/medals to their names. If they've achieved this before they've even reached the point that they can grow proper facial hair then why won't Smith? You can make a case for Leeds not throwing in as many youngsters as Wigan, but the two players who have come through recently with the biggest 'reps' in Sutcliffe and Ward have hardly spent ages waiting not being involved now have they?

Sutcliffe is completely different to what is been spoken of in this thread. He was more of your Clarkson, or Foster type player. Someone who actually came good a bit later within the environment he was in, and good luck to him.

Ward I will give you was a player who was highly regarded as a Junior, and who Leeds got hold of. Had he not hit the injuries though, he would probably have been playing for his country before now, which tells you the difference with these lads who are pulling up trees at a younger age. Remember his debut season, and asked to join the England train on squad.

You can not put all the junior players in the same basket and follow the same, there has to be exceptions to the general rule. Much the same as they do at first team level if an exceptional talent became available.

what makes you so confident its not the beter coaching?
i mean, i've noticed we always seem to have a decent amount of players in the england youth/academy teams (4 in the england academy team that beat australia and 5 in the youth squad just announced)
so either that must be down to better coaching or having better players - something you also say no to because we dont win academy championships?

I also wonder what makes you say Ward's path into the first team is blocked?
he's been in the first team since 18 years old, and has made 46 SL appearances despite 2 shoulder reconstructions
9 less games than Bateman and 2 less than than Ben Currie (who would be considered good comparisons) who as far as i know have not had his injury problems.
Similarly, Sutcliffe has 39 SL apps for the Rhinos already at barely age 20 - more than Ryan Hampshire (12) and George Williams (23) combined

is he? i seem to remember him and Baldwinson making their u18s debut at the same time and both were very highly regarded even then.

All youngsters who get into the system have something about them, otherwise they wouldn't be taken that far. Some however, are regarded way above the rest, and that is what is been spoken about here. Sutcliffe was never spoken of in that ilk, and I don't think Baldwinson was either to be fair.

They may well have attracted attention when playing for the 16's and 19's after further developments. But we are talking here about players in the scholarship and pulling up trees.

And to balance it out a bit, I do believe Mason Tonks was someone who was also very highly regarded at the younger age, and it can not be said that his game is going the way it was expected at the moment.

I think you're going back towards the monetary thing. I was on about pathway to the first team. Whilst some would've like to have seen Sutcliffe start at halfback a few more times instead of from the bench you must agree he's hardly had a shabby first team career so far in terms of number of games and important games picked for. So really the suggestion from Sal about Smith and his chances of playing don't really hold much weight. Like you said, Sutcliffe wasn't as highly touted as Smith has been, but he's done fairly well and the pivot positions are only going to become more available over the next 2/3 years.

Foster and Clarkson were much more later bloomers.
Sutcliffe was an England youth international, and was always highly rated from what i can remember.
I accept your point that he wasnt as hyped as someone like a Morgan Smith or Cameron Smith though.
As for Tonks i honestly dont recall - am I right in thinking he wasnt with us through scholarship? I dont seem to remember him being an England youth international at the same time as our other players, either way (but i can see why people would have seen potential with his size)

My point was more that Sutcliffe wasnt some kid who came out of nowhere. He was an England youth international, made his debut in the u18s at 16, and has now made near 40 SL appearances and he's barely 20 years old.
He seems to be an example that we are able to offer good young players development and a pathway to the first team (just as we did with Stevie Ward)

You are right that all youth players cant be treated the same though - it'd be a big disappointment to lose Cameron Smith were he not to sign on with us.
But I'm not sure why some are criticising the way the academy is run when we've yet to really see something come back to haunt us (Learmouth, Baldwinson the two i can most recently remember who've not progressed as hoped)

Are we at crossed purposes here? I am talking about the hooker Ward not the second row.

Are you seriously comparing those guys in quality terms to the likes of Sinfield and McGuire? If guys of the quality of Sinfield, McGuire and Burrow were around in the juniors now Sutcliffe would not get a look in - he isn't the future longer term.

We are talking about a different Ward - I was talking about the hooker not the second row forward.

Look at the youngsters at Leeds and how tough they find the transition into SL and compare that to the youngsters at Saints and Wigan.

Ask yourself this question - why aren't Leeds producing the quality of youngster into the first team - it is either one of three things, the quality of the intake, the quality of the coaching to bring them to the correct level or a coach who will not play them.

Let's look at the Leeds side: in the forwards only Ward is a likely starter that has come through the academy and Singleton on the bench, in the back Hall and Watkins in the last five years - so that's four players five if you count Sutcliffe out of 100+ youngsters that would have gone through the system. That suggests something isn't working.

Realistically Wigan, Saints and Wire don't have many more than that if picking the strongest 17. All very well talking about other teams playing youngsters and going on about pathways, A young Wigan forward today has to overcome players they brought in such as Tautai, Patrick, Flower, Bateman, Clubb, ones they've re-signed in Tomkin and Mossop and had they not wanted to leave also Scott Taylor and Pettybourne. Saints have Vea, LMS, Amor, Walmsley, Masoe, Flanagan. Wire bringing in Asotasi, England, Sims and Clark.

On one hand we complain that our rivals are going out buying players, but then say we want the youngsters to play.