The club is buying the potential like a lot of premium employers - if you want the very best there is a rate for them.

He's not an elite RL player though. Not yet. And he will take significantly longer to mature into his role than your son will and has a significantly higher likelihood of not making it (due to injury/not kicking on etc) at Leeds than your son will in his job.
He's also 3 years younger (assuming your son is 21 as you said he's a student starting new job) and only just starting out on his RL career. Golding is, to all intents and purposes, an apprentice.

As I said, I'd love to pay him and all RL players more, but in the current context of both national & RL wages and the context of Goldings career situation, it sounds about right to me.

Having said that I think anyone being paid only £12k for a full time job is sorely underpaid, regardless of the job or personal situation.

Delusional? Coming from a guy who has decided in his head what Golding is being offered that's saying something! What makes you think Golding wasn't in demand??? Because if he was he'd have turned Leeds down? You say they're all offered the same yet highlight an instance where a player wasn't offered the same.....kinda makes a mockery of your 'fact' that they ALL get the same deal.

I'm certain GH doesn't offer them too much but like the Baldwinson case he is prepared to make allowances so what evidence do you have that he didn't make the same allowances for Golding (especially considering it was on the back of 2 MOM performances against the Aussies).

You don't know what he's being offered wage wise.
You don't know what increases/clauses may be in the contract as the years pass.
You don't know what clubs were interested in him.

Basically you don't know anything about his deal except it's for 4 years yet you've try to build this whole angle that the player is being screwed by the club.

You dont know either so dont come so high and mighty. My son played and is friendly with three youngsters signed by Leeds they were all offered the same deal on the same money. Leeds have well publicised wage structures that apply across the whole playing staff. Baldwinson was GB captain and the top junior in his age group in a position where Leeds were weak, that is not the case with Golding. What I am saying is a 4 year deal is heavily weighted in favour of the club and is completely unnecessary-the fact that is beyond your simple thought processes is your issue.

My son is on a 3 year development period if Golding hasnt developed in that time he isnt going to. My son is basically an apprentice he has no specific job knowledge.

Also there are far more kids with the potential to do my son's job than Goldings, more people work in his office than play RL in SL the talent pool is very small in RL by comparison.

I, like everyone else on here, have no idea what his contract is worth. The chances are that it isn't massive, but when you look at the youth in football and the excessive wages they start on then I cant see a problem. Theres no doubting Golding has the potential but he has a long way to go. 4 years says the club is backing you, and like people have said, there will be incentives and renewals of it goes well. Remeber the culture the club has been built on? Well that too stretches to the youth. Work hard and be loyal to the club and they'll back you. Baldwinson chose to leave and now his progression looks to have been pushed back.

No he's not an apprentice. He's learning the job that is different to learning and training for specific skills toward a skilled role. It's a 99.9% chance that your son will/has the capability to learn that role and excel in it. That probability is far, far lower for Golding especially when you add in the potential setbacks of injury. Plus, as I said, he's 3 years younger.

There are also far more other jobs available to your son. He has the rest of the UK marketplace to offer himself to. Golding has 11 other clubs. Probably with only space spare for an unproven 18 year old. There are probably only 10-20 "places" available for a player like Golding. There are thousands for your son.

As mentioned, a 4 year deal is a commitment by the club. I'd also be very suprised if the contract is a straight £12k across all 4 years. I'd imagine it rises each year and rises by more on certain conditions such as 1st team appearances and rep appearances.

As I said, I'd love to pay him more. I think he deserves more. But then I think all RL players deserve more and I think anyone paid £12k deserves more.

Sal, you do not help your argument by resorting to using invective against those who disagree with you.
I hope that your son does not do the same in his employment else he'll end up alienating most of his colleagues & superiors.

I know I don't know what the details of the deal are.....but I'm not the one here pretending to know.



Did any of them just beforehand win 2 MOM awards against the Aussie Schoolboys that won't have gone unnoticed by other clubs in the game (maybe even in Aus). If those 3 lads weren't offered 4 year deals then it proves that they aren't ALL offered matching deals.



Leeds do have their wage structures, we all know that and I'm not saying they're throwing massive money at him.



Of course signing players to longer deals works well for the club as it offers them some security. It also offers them some good PR to fans and upcoming juniors to have stories of tying up their youngsters to long term deals. What we also know about Leeds' wage/contracts structure is that they reward those who see/have had their long term careers at the club. Not only will Golding NOT be stuck on the same wage in the 3rd/4th year of this current contract if he's made an impact by then but he'll have earned himself some brownie points so to speak for future contract negotiations......more so than a Baldwinson who left amongst tales of "disrespectful offers" that forced GH to come out and tell the fans that he was offered more than normal, given the documented wage structures at the club that was a big move for GH to come out and admit to as it could have implications for future negotiations with juniors......hell for all we know Golding's agent may have highlighted the Baldwinson case of GH making an exception to the rule and gotten his guy more money.

Oh yes he is

imo its great to see that ashton has pledged his future to the rhinos,he's a great player and definately one for the future,he's also another stanningley product



regarding this debate that is going on regarding what certain posters know "as a fact" what they get paid....
if any of our academy players wish to chase the big bucks on offer out on the open market then let them choose this option, as sadly for them they won't be getting this big contract from the rhinos if that was their preferred choice?

we could possibly end up losing out on a couple of junior stars to other bigger paying clubs at that level like warrington or now salford, but the system in place at the rhinos,whether you like it or not,has served us well over the past decade and we have reaped the rewards as a result

i am a very big fan of morgan smith as he is a very talented player,but sadly the only reason he left us for warrington is £'s and apparently a lot more of them too than was on offer from us,but we've lost junior players before and none have really gone on to haunt us have they?

would any posters on here get rid of this strict pay structure that our club abides by and simply join the open market should they wish to sign any given player either junior or otherwise?

I would definitely without a shadow of doubt dump a pay structure, that can see you miss out on a potential real star. There should always be an exception to any rule.

And when the next player who thinks he's as good as the player you broke the structure for comes knocking?

If Leeds had broken structure to retain Morgan Smith and then it comes time to offer Cameron Smith a new contract, he's going to want the same isn't he? And the next most talented kid to come out of the 16s is going want the same deal again. There goes any kind of structure you might have had, and before you know it you're into paying top dollar for every remotely promising player to come through your academy because you've set a precedent.

It doesn't matter to me whether people agree or disagree with me this is a message board its like rugby itself its a form of entertainment. It is not real life its a release from the behavioural structures of the working life.

My son has got the job he has through his own hard work and endeavour with a family background that supports and encourages both. Part of which was to get him involved in junior RL he played from being 8 to his last year at uni. The lesson of RL is that teams are important whether its family or work, message boards are every man for himself so you adjust your behaviour accordingly?

Surely the skill is to be able to spot the ones that are going to make it and support that decision financially? Virtually every other commercial entity has to make these same decisions the talent pool at elite level is small and if you want the very best you have offer what the market dictates.

What Morgan Smith has done is create uncertainty others will explore the opportunities before signing for Leeds - in the past they have been grateful to except any offer.

I can see that a four year contract favours the rhinos, but how is that different to any employment contract in the country?

Unfortunately contracts are worth diddly squat these days. If a player wants to leave he will.
I agree we should try and keep within the wage structure for the youngsters with some sort of incremental drift if they progress.
But it is tome we started to put our hands in the pockets to get some decent players bought if not for this season then certainly next..
It is a bit like Leeds United when I hear Radio pundits and some fans saying of course top players want to play for us we are a top team.
LUFC are no longer a top team they are at best a middle table team in Division 2 or whatever it is called. They are one of the top teams for support but that's it.
My worry is the Rhinos will go through the same thing.
In the past we could attract players because they wanted to play for a team that wins things.
Yes we won the CC but our league form was rubbish and I fear it will get worse this year with attendances dropping.
GH is a wise man (xmas theme there) and he should know you have to speculate to accumulate.
Lets hope he remembers that in the next 6 months.

I agree that their should be exceptions to the wage structures....but within reasonable boundaries. The figure I was told that Morgan Smith was offered by Wire is over double what we usually offer youngsters and that is too much IMO to chase after to match Wire's offer. As other posters have said it leads to the next prospect wanting that or something near that, and then the next, and the next and so on.

The difference between LUFC is they have never been a really top team in the same way as say Liverpool everton, Man U nal. They have got big support and had some success, but more like notts Forrest, aston villa etr. We're has Leeds rhinos are Giants off RL, one of the traditional powerhouses along side wigen saints, Bradford.

You never heard of Bremner, Giles, Charlton, Hunter, Gray, Clarke etc, etc, etc. Internationals from one to eleven and consistently the best English team from the late 60's through to the mid 70's. To say they have never been a top team is laughable.

I walked into a pub in Centre city Phila last week and week and the Irish bartender recognized my accent and I told him I'M from Leeds and immediately he reeled off all the names from the Revie era I.E Bremner , Giles ,Hunter, Clarke Eddie Grey Elland road etc .Its not so long ago Leeds utd were in the European Champions league semi final.I told him with a smile my game is RL ,but then had to explain the usual differences RL and RU.I wouldn't include Bradford as traditional giants of RL

Yes I have heard of those players and yes LUFC did have a good side in those days. But you have agreed with my comments by trying to disagree, what have united done since those days, not been consistently winning trothys, and as I said they rank more along side villa ( European champions) forest ( twice European champs) than Man U Liverpool, nal. If fact villa and forest are argubly bigger clubs.
Leeds United are more like say the RL equivalent of leigh or hull kr. They have both had good periods of succsess but not power houses like wigen and Leeds.

Leeds United are Bradford Bulls

Both looking rosy at the turn of the Millenium, both chased the dream and have been horribly mis-managed by more than one person, both deducted points on more than one occasion, both lost all their best players easily, ownership of own ground questionable, lost around half their crowd for games and now both out of the top tier.

Difference is I can see Bradford coming back and being up there again, in a few years anyway, can't see United getting out of tier 2 anytime yet and if they did could be 20 years before they where pushing for honours and European football again. Wish I was wrong.

I think this is a fair assessment - before Revie Leeds never won anything and have won one trophy since. It has traditionally been a second tier side as it is now, the Revie era was a blip rather than the norm. The same can be said of Bradford the early years of SL being a blip rather than the norm