I don't believe that 10 yrs playing at one club should be the benchmark of a testimonial. How much time is spent on the treatment table? How much time spent in disciplinaries?

Like I said my view isn't at all about Bailey, it's about how easy Leeds have handed out these. Sinfield earned his big time. Peacock hasn't done 10 yrs at Leeds, but he earned his anyway with what he has done. Testimonials shouldn't just be based on time at a one club.

With regards the Leeds players, some have been very lucky to play with very good players which has resulted in winners medals, that far better players out there have never had the opportunity to achieve. The fact that we have a salary capped sport means that players will stay within the confounds of one club much more often, whilst they are doing a specific role, and earning good money for their part. That part is not the same role that a Sinfield or Peacock brings to the club, and hence why their testimonials are more than earned.

Your first sentence states "Given that the RL Testimonials are normally granted after 10yrs+ of service playing one of if not the most brutal and toughest sports in the world". So if that was the case why are not all rugby players who play 10 yrs full stop given testimonials? Because it isn't about that, it is about being at one club only for 10yrs, regardless of what service you have given in that 10yrs, and that is where I have the difference of opinion.

Bailey has played 291 first team matches for Leeds. Which averages at 24 a season, including his little spell at her majesty's pleasure. Which I think it would be fair to consign to the past now.

Opinions always differ, but for me, as with Sinfield, Burrow, McGuire, JJB, we're talking about rewarding loyalty of people who spend their entire professional career with one employer. Analogues with "real life" are a bit problematic in my opinion because most of the rest of us don't tend to have quite such short, intense career paths. But just comparing with their peers, although you say this "will happen more often" there are not actually all that many examples trotting around the league at the moment. If the level of service he'd given was as low as some people on here are trying to suggest, then it seems implausible to me that an organisation with what has proved to be a very winning-oriented culture would have kept him on. Indeed a number of players have been fairly ruthlessly moved on during that time, under a succession of good coaches.

Granted there is a two-way thing between club and player, in that the club provides opportunity. But I'm sure each of those players, including Bailey, had the option to leave and earn more or the same salary more than once during that period. And the club has had opportunities to move them out. Neither has happened. That's what we're talking about in terms of mutual loyalty.

And how many of those has he started? how many of those did he pick up a MOM in?




Had Ian Kirke been here two years earlier, he too will be enjoying a testimonial next year. I am sure that would have been welcomed with glee.


People have there own opinions, that is for them. For me having someting like this, you earn it. And being lucky enough to be part of a squad for years, paid a decent pay, and given the opportunity to win honours, is not enough on it's own to warrant that.

You can not compare the careers of a Sinfield, a Peacock, a Briers, a Sculthorpe, a Joynt, a Cunningham, with the likes of a Bailey, a JJB, or an Ian Kirke, no matter where winners rings come into it, and that is why I have a difference of opinion when it comes to testimonials.

I see your point. I still think you're over-stating the role pure luck plays here, but that's opinion for you.

I also, on a slightly different point, think JJB was the beating heart (where Sinfield was the brains) of the Leeds team for several of those years. While I acknowledge differences of the sort you're getting at, I'd have JJB firmly in the first list rather than the 2nd.

I think both deserve their testimonials if they are good enough and committed enough to persuade their employers to keep them in the front line of the business for so long. That is why I think the club should grant them for long service (a purely quantitative judgement). The good people of Leeds and it's diaspora will determine the extent to which they want to support those testimonials, which is where I believe the sort of qualitative distinctions you're making should come into effect.

Are you saying JJB didn't deserve his testimonial?

He's started more games than bench spots. True story. Someone may have the stats on it.

Wait!! have I missed something?!

In British sports a player is given a testimonial after playing for a club for 10 years +

This was a way to say thank-you for the service they have done for the club but also to give a "golden handshake" as the proceeds would be given as a retirement fund.

Why should this tradition be only for players who have been the greatest to play the game.

Now due to an almost unseen circumstance(can only think of Man Utds class of 93) that nearly a whole team have players have stuck together at Leeds from youth team to veterans.we seem to be having a plethora of testimonials. but it shouldn't dilute the awesomeness of the achievement.

It's not an awseomness, that's the point. How many other sports are salary capped, where there is an incentive of that cap to have own club developed players in the team?

As the salary cap and incentive has only been around the same period of Leeds success era, as more years go by you will see more and more of it from other clubs having players staying at one club.

You also have to ask from the other side, how many would have stayed had Leeds not had the successfull period? Even Sinfield has stated many times that he could have gone for more money, but success was important to him. Where has someone like Diskin jumps ship as soon as testimonial granted, wtih a preference for money.

My view on it is this. Whilst Bailey has not been a top drawer player, he has contributed to the period of outstanding success. He has always been in the first 17 when fit, and has been selected for all the big matches I can remember.

Sinfield said after 2009 that each member of the squad could earn more elsewhere. THis is how we repay a squad that has acheieved greatness through togetherness and being greater than the sum of their parts.

Their respective salaries and testimonial incomes will reflect this. Those doing the less flashy stuff should still get a testimonial IMO.

Jeez, you're a difficult man to please.

Can't we just reward someone who's played the toughest team sport known to man for over ten years for the same club? Regardless of who it is, I believe some recognition should be give for such an achievement.

What's the achievement? Playing the toughest team sport? Or playing for one club for 10 years? They are both seperate.

Like I said the in a salary capped sport where players have specific squad roles, and where the club are better off by having own developed players, the 10 year thing is not what it was before the salary rules were introduced. It will happen more, and would certainly be more noticeable where a team has a period of dominance.

The club trained allowance in the salary cap has only been in force for a couple of years and there are plenty of other players who would probably be used in that allowance of £50k max. Leeds salary cap allowance would not be affected if Bailey were moved on (other than freeing up Bailey's actual salary). It would also not affect Leeds on the Club Trained squad rules either, since Leeds easily make that quota.

Its always been custom and practice that 10 years service qualifies a player for a testimonial

Clubs are only marginally better off from having home grown players in terms of salary cap, but they are potentially be worse off with the risk they carry by developing their own players. Why do you think it's so preferable for home grown players gotcha