Loyalty cuts both ways.

If he were to suffer a serious injury in the next two years, he's got the security of knowing he's still got a job when he gets fit again. Plus, four years would take him to the end of his A-levels and potentially a degree if he decides to continue his education.

In return, he's maybe taken a lower salary in the knowledge he can renegotiate if he does make the first team.

If he is good enough he will have no problem finding work, if he has a serious injury he will be insured and if he has the potential an appropriate club will be prepared to fund the re-hab. If it is very serious the latter end of the contract will not matter.

On the education if he makes the first team very unlikely he will have sufficient time for education, if he doesn't he will have plenty of time to study.

This is GH's way of tying up talent at a very low cost - good business for him but not such a great deal for the player. 12k a year doesn't go very far these days.

Then no need to sign for more than two years at his age - four years works for only one person and it isn't the player, sadly. If Hardaker signs a contract extension it is very unlikely this player will remain at Leeds beyond the end of 2016, the extended contract is not needed either way.

I don't think Hardakers new contract will have any effect on the this player remaining at Leeds.

It has often been pointed out on here (when I have queried) how it takes a few days to physically recover from a RL game and therefore one game a week is about the max that can be expected of them.

I would argue this being the case, he can be studying part-time 2/3 days a week at uni during his physical recovery from the weekend game.

Yep. Admittedly you need a Uni who are willing to be flexible but IIRC Sinfield is either studying for or has already finished a Masters degree and Hall is studying an accountancy degree.

IMO we will need a new fullback within 12 months, Hardaker is the only decent option we have to replace Sinfield at 6.

Or maybe the coach and GH see Zak as a natural replacement for Sinfield.
Not sure if that is the case and he would have been tried there before now.
But maybe a possibility.
The other possibility is he is off to Oz end of this season.

Why is it sad that the club has a length of contract that works well for them?

How come you've decided that the contract is a poor one when the only detail you know about it is the length and absolutely nothing about what he's being paid? What's to say the wage he'd get in his 3rd and 4th year of the contract isn't going to go up?

Where do you think it'd leave the chances of an 18 year old with 1 appareance to his name of getting a few games next season if he turned to GH and BMc and turned down a 4 year contract because he only wanted 2 years because he was concerned he might be getting underpaid for the latter 2 years even though the club has a history of improving contracts that weren't about to run out.

If he plays and does well over the next 2 seasons then the last thing he needs to be concerned about is being underpaid for the 2017/18 seasons. (Not least because with Peacock, Leuluai, Sinield, JJB, McGuire nearing retirements there's going to be a big chunk of money being freed up of the SC in the next couple of years)

Agree with Printer. These deals work because players know that Leeds will quickly improve them if they kick on, as they have with many of our current squad. If they don't then its no great loss to the club to pay them out. I'm pretty sure we haven't seen a single case of a kid on low wages becoming a first team regular who then didn't get an upgrade.

Its also good business for Leeds to tie up younger players under contract, as if they then get tempted elsewhere we at least get a fee. I assume after the losses of Walker and Lee Smith to Union its the part of the rationale for continually extending the deals of the likes of Hall and Watkins well before their existing contracts expire.

The Baldwinson issues opened up what the contracts offered to young players were - he said he was offered 15k and Leeds said he was offered more than they would normally offer a youngster. There is no logic in offering more for years 2,3 & 4 until he has justified an increase.

If as we all agree he will either cut it or get cut in two years then there seems little logic in signing a four year contract. He will only get a game at Leeds if there is a serious injury to a player or he demonstrates he is good enough to play at elite level. Neither of which are dependent on him signing a four year contract. Perhaps if Leeds are not prepared to accept he only wants a two year contract then they are maybe not the best employer for him - this isn't a one way street, employment never is. Ablett is an example of a player who wouldn't sign a long term deal as a youngster never stopped him progressing.

As Brisbane says this is a way of Leeds tying up young talent to protect their interest - good business for the club not necessary in the best interest of the player.

Maybe the contract has an option to review / walk away after two years? Thus satisfying those on both sides of the fence on this one?

As pointed out, all we know is the 'headline' information of 'four years' - the conditions and agreements made by both sides in signing; we can only guess at.

Maybe it says something like 'a 4 year contract, which will be reviewed after 2 and if less than 20% of 1st team games have been played in, the club can then terminate the contract after 2 years; conversely if 50%+ of games he has been involved in, he will be offered a 50% increase in his wage for the final 2 years'.

We don't know!

If it's not in the best interests of the player Sal, why has he signed it?

He's as hot a property as he's ever going to be right now after the comments made by the Aussie Schools management, so why not tell Leeds to stuff it and try his luck on the open market if it's such a bad deal?

It's not unheard of for these contracts to have clauses in re-increase ,appearances & international recognition etc.
Golding is hot property at the moment and his stock has increased after his efforts for England Acadamy so i'm sure he's well protected within the terms of his deal.
As for Hardaker i'm surprised his strongly rumoured new deal hasn't been announced yet and is a bit of a concern imo in that we should be building the new generation of Rhinos team around him ,Watkins and Hall etc.
If he has signed the new deal then he is good enough to play 6 and that's where Darryl Powell said years ago that's where he sees his long term future.

He's young there are very few who have the confidence to take Gary on at that age - Ablett was one, never did him any harm. It could be that he isn't as highly rated by other clubs and his options are limited? Let's face we have seen promising youngsters turn their back on Leeds in the last 12 months.

Time only will tell but 4 years seems a long time for a youngster

It does if you're 17/18, working part time and still living at home with your parents.

I am coming this as a longer-term football fan than RL admittedly, but a 4 year contract doesn't mean staying 4 years does it? I know 'transfers' don't seem anywhere near as common in RL and not a patch on football transfer fees, but I remember Andy Carroll signing a new 5 year contract at Newcastle in October 2010, only to be at Liverpool come January 31st 2011.

Part of the reason we got such a huge fee was because we had just signed him to a five year contract - a tactic MA has used several times since. Could this be playing a part...?

If he is 'all that' and NRL teams are interested, the fact that he then has 2.5 or 3 years left on his contract means Leeds are in line for a darn sight more than if he had signed a 2 year deal so therefore only had a few months left to go?

You clear approx £925 a month out of that you will have to run a car pay some board or rent a room and pay for your own food etc

You still want to have a social life, clothes etc. - you will not be able to have another job.

12k is roughly an adult (21+) full time job on the minimum wage. It's roughly 20% higher than a similar full time job for Goldings age. And well over double the wage for an apprentice.

I'd love to see all RL players paid more, but in the current climate and at current rates I don't see £12k guaranteed for 4 years as unreasonable for someone who is very much unproved.

I'm forced reluctantly to agree. With the SC at its current level I think it likely that if you overpay at the bottom of the food chain you'll see some of those at their peak drift away.

12k a year !!

Is that even minimum wage?

People do realise that 12k is just a number plucked out randomly by Sal and nobody actually knows how much Golding's wage will be.
Maybe they've matched the 15k offered to Baldwinson, maybe they've even gone higher than that.

It may be that a 4-year contract to an 18-yr-old also includes a "scholarship" to Beckett/Carnegie (worth £9k/year. Well, not really worth £9k/year but anyway costing £9k/year). That would at least make it a more attractive contract to sign. Other than that, yes, £12k or £15k a year does seem pitifully small.

Once again you show how delusional you are - trust me 12k is what they get for their first contract they are all offered the same - Baldwinson was an exception because he was in demand, he was prepared to reject the 12k.

He is an elite youngster not just any kid off the street, my son has just started his first job elite student 26k starting salary puts 12k into perspective!!