One of our young players who apparently was not up to the mythical Saints standard has just signed a two year deal with the Rhinos, albeit on dual registration with Hunslet for the first season.

Is it defo Andy and not Danny ?

Aye. He's a forward, I think. They signed him from York, so it's probably a while since we binned him off.

Good luck to the lad, but I don't see why your getting your knickers in a twist about it.

Think I remember him. Was he short stocky guy ?

Hunslet. I think he joined them at the end of 2011 didn't he?

Yeah Andy, a 23 year old prop we let go 3 years ago. He's been with Hunslet and has impressed. I read something the other day where McDermott was saying he'd be better than the other signings that have moved up from the Championship recently. He was also one of the players being scouted by NRL clubs including New Zealand Warriors along with Anthony England (Signed for Warrington) and Hopkins from Leigh who has signed for the Goons.

It would seem we've completely misjudged this one, but I suppose 3 years ago we probably had a half decent pack and it would have been hard for him to get into the first team. Moving to a Championship club and playing full time against the big, nasty, bruisers that play in the front row down there has clearly seen him develop quicker than he was at Saints.

Who is getting their knickers in a twist about it? I don't see that from anyone.

In my post there was a hint of sarcasm about this mythical Saints standard, given that Leeds are multiple Grand Final winners and we are, er, 8th in the league, but that's all.

I'd suggest there's more than a hint.

Like Saddened! says, three years ago I'd imagine he'd have wanted a bit more of a wedge and if he's not ready then, and three years later it looks like he's still not reader, the Salary cap means you can't keep paying them. It was about three years ago we let Paul Johnson go. I'd say that one was definetly a mistake.

I don't think he made a first team appearence though, so he obviously wasn't as good as what was around him (at the time). If he has turned out alright, then it goes to show the merits of the dual reg system - playing regular first team in the division below obviously does a lot more for a player's dvelopment than being a bit part player on the fringes of a SL squad.

Perhaps as well as dual regging players with Whitehaven ( i think they can have three players per week ), perhaps we should be sending the likes of Hand and Forster there on a season long loan.

The problem is, you can't keep them all.

I think he made an appearance when Daniel Anderson was here.


He wasn't on dual registration. He was let go by Saints and took a part-time role at Hunslet, working part-time also. Leeds picked him from Hunslet but have said he is on dual registration next season. That might be along the same lines as Alex Walmsley's dual registration arrangement we have with Batley (I think he's only played a couple of times for Batley this season hasn't he?).


No but instead of say him we've enjoyed the benefits of Perry, for example. Sometimes I think Saints are a little too distracted by NRL players to see the potential they have under their own noses, and that sometimes that potential needs time. We have needed forwards, after all.

The posters point wasnt that he was on dual reg more that playing for the lower league sides and gaining experience works quite well for some players, had the system been about when this kid was in our system it may have benefitted him

That was exactly my point. The succesful signing of Hill and Walmsley and subsequent rise in interest in lower division players around the 21-23 year old mark show that for many, its as good a place to develop as a SL reserve team.
This season, Jordan Hand, who is in a comparitive position to the one Yates was, is playing regular rugby in the same enviroment. Hopefully we'll do better with him.

Its always a little easier with hindsight. perry has been a disaster, but as a signing it seemed sound.
I think the real error could be which ones we seem to want to keep - for instance, Magennis was only released due to injury. We persisted with him even thought I personally thought he looked incapable of making the grade. Meanwhile, Johnson and Yates have gone on to be a success.
Other players like Ashurst, Emmit and Dixon got plenty of chances before being deemed not up to standard - whilst we perhaps made up our mind on Johson and Yates too early, we dragged them on too long.
Clearly the u19s can only take a player so far and it seem that only guys of greater levels of talent can just jump into first team action (and its especially hard for forwards, especially late developers). So you've got two options in between - dual reg, or loan them to a Sl club that needs them.
Past that, you could try and send them down under to play in the NSW or Queensland cup, like Mullally did.

Problem is, when you're in a salry capped league, the idea of paying a wage to Yates for 6 years (if he made his appearence under Anderson) to sit in the reserves doesn't make sense. You may as well release him, pay no one for 6 years, then revisit the championship and sign whoever's turned out best - in this case Walmsley.

The perfect situation is to somehow keep "first dips" on him without paying him. We could have send him on season long loans for York or Hunslet to pay 75% of his wages?

Whilst people might not like the dual reg system when they see the likes of Paul Wood playing at Swindon, it seems to have its advantages in terms of national player production.

He only played for Hunslet because he couldn't get into the first team at Saints. He's been travelling over from St Helens while holding down a part-time job. The only way playing for Hunslet has 'helped' him it would seem is that because in some Superleague teams it is becoming fashionable now to look to the Championships for players, he has been noticed by the current Champions who are dual reg partners with Hunslet. He is now 23. I am quite sure he would have preferred playing for Saints during the intervening years.

You've agreed with me in essence because my criticism was of our recruitment policy rather than individuals. Saints appear to be lagging behind a bit in that their default is to look to the NRL rather than the British game, Walmsley being the exception. Forwards always mature later and therefore it would make better sense to hold on to them for longer to see how they go. I don't think it would have been unreasonable for Saints to have loaned Yates (and Johnson too) out to Championship clubs on season long loans to see how they develop rather than let them go completely, but aside from dumping players at Salford we never seem to do that. There appears to be little in the way of strategic planning at Saints where recruitment and development (beyond junior rugby) is concerned.

I'm sure he would - full time training meaning he doesn't have to find another job, playing aginst skinny teenagers instead of full grown, battlehardened men.
I can see why players, especially prop forwards, would benefit more from spending time playing against Championship opposition rather than SL u19 .
Suggesting Leeds have only looked at him because it "in fashion" is a little odd, they've had no problem producing players or finding quality signings when needed over the last 10 years. They picked up Ian Kirke in a similar manner to Yates and he's been a salwart for them for what, 8 years? Zak Hardacker was also signed from Fev.

Hang on, we've signed Turner and Manu too. Our 3 NRL signings have all been duff, which make them stick in our craw a little.
Certainly, it would have been better to give Johnson and Yates time at a loan club, but salary caps won't let us keep them all. We backed the wrong horses in Ashurst, Magennis and Dixon though, who were deemed not good enough in the end, that was part of the problem (I still think Dixon was unlucky).

[url=http://www.saints.org.uk/home/player.php?num=166824 matches. All listed as unoffical[/url

If we had kept him on the books, Saddened would have called time on his career long before 23.

He's not played a game for the Rhino's yet some people are calling this an endorsement. In the end we can't keep everyone and sign everyone. You have to make choices. Surely we are not suggesting that Graham, TP in their prime should have been dropped for this guy. People love using hindsight to make judgements, but quite frankly that's a weak call.

If you want to kick up a fuss then it should have been done at the time the decision was made to let him go. Not years hence when you can sit back and just wait for an oppertunity to put the knife in.

I mean seriously until this signing was announced how closely was Andy Yates career being followed by all those who are happy to now bag the club for letting him go?

Who cares anyway, he's gone and not even played for Leeds yet. Lets wait and see how he pans out before we say of it was right or wrong to get shut of him.

[url=http://viewtopic.php?f=17&t=553169&tsmp=1372426820&start=10The excitment is overwhelming on the Rhinos board[/url.

The kid's apparently in his 3rd season at Hunslet. We're much better of as a club letting these guys through the net,saving our pennies but efficently scouting the championship for potential signings like Walmsley.

Unfortunately, thats just what some on here do. Nobody questioned his release at the time, and the fact that he has developed and Leeds now see potential is good on him. Hindsight is easy and is what Saddened and Saintsfan base most of their arguments upon. Unless you can see 5 years into the future, most juniors will be a gamble. Some you win, some you lose.