No space for Bailey, Kirke or (more appropriately) Ablett?

That is the only issue with a group statue, who do you include.

That said, I still firmly believe that is the correct thing to do rather than just having Sinny.

And the fact still remains, the period would never have happened without Sinfield. The fact some are trying to play down his importance, is quite frankly bewildering.

People go on about ethos at the club, who the hell do they think started it and set the right example? the very reason he was put in place as captain and leader, setting the right example. Who was managing those all important games to achieve the success?

To answer an earlier point, there have been many an average player at Leeds during this glory period. That doesn't mean Sinfield could have achieved the glory on his own, hell he is not the greatest player there has been. However, he is by far and away the most important player in this clubs history, and quite rightly that should be recognised individually. I am sure personally he would prefer recognising as a group, as that is exactly the sort of leader he was. But to be frank it would be quite insulting to do that, considering his influence on what we achieved.

You're upside down on this.

Nobody is trying to play down sinnys contribution. It's more recognising the most successful period of the clubs history with Sinny at the front of that. I'm unsure why that is bewildering.

I do see your point and I understand the desire for individual recognition and I'm not against that. I just happen to also think that recognition of the core group (define as you please) of this successful generation is also well earned and we'll deserved.

If you want a statue of Sinny stood alone and then some other recognition for the wider team then fine. It just rankles when people look straight past men like mags, burrow and ablett.

I'm afraid you're wrong.

Success is very cyclical. Before the CC of 99 we won what ... the Yorkshire cup in 88? Before that what? Ask Liverpool what their glory period in the 80s led to. Ask Man Utd fans how things are going. Once upon a time dewsbury were a big club. In ten years time there will be clubs winning things you never thought you'd see.

Are you suggesting we don't recognise the most successful generation of the club ever in case we happen to be just as successful at some point in the next 120 years?

Agree.

Sinfield (and maybe Peacock) has been a true icon (not just a great) of the game.

As others have said where the hell do you start/stop when suggesting a group statute? The amount of bronze needed would put paid to any ground development .... and would probably take up the space of any new proposed South Stand.
We could maybe stretch it to a life size statue of Burrow

No I'm not suggesting that at all ,but it isossible that this period continues

Apart from the Sinfield statue I think there will be Wall with Plaques of all the players who played in the GF's and winning CC finals in that period 2004 to 2015

And therein lies the problem. You cannot hope to recognise a 12 year period of success with a statue honouring a set group of players.

Can you imagine the threads on here entitled "Why wasn't xxxx in the statue?" once it was unveiled?

I am quite ambivalent about this, but just cannot see the club having a "decision meeting" about who & who should not be included.

The one thing I am fairly sure about is that nobody (fans, players & officials) would have a problem with a Kevin Sinfield tribute.

Fully agree with both points.

My view though is still that recognition beyond Sinny alone is in order. Not that I have any say in it of course.

My proposal is to honour Sinfield with a statue at the ground & following today's ground development proposals to name the streets in both proposed housing developments after rugby greats.
Ablett Avenue, Burrow Boulevard, Kirke Crescent, Peacock Place, McGuire Mews, Sinfield Street, JJB Byway, Lewis Jones Lane, Ward Way, Bailey Court....

I like this idea.

I've always thought a team statue was the best option but on reflection realised it would be nigh on impossible to choose who should be in it. Is someone who has come through the academy more important than someone brought in? I'm sure Kev would prefer a team one (not that I know him but how he comes across) but I'm also as sure that the players recognise his importance to what we've achieved. Whilst he wasn't the fastest, strongest or most skillful, he was arguably the most complete we'll ever see in every way. The burden of captaincy and all it brings can't be underestimated, and we'll never know how it would have affected the others, but we know how it affected him. He lead and drove this team on and thoroughly deserves recognition for it. (And we haven't knighted anyone else so that shows the esteem we hold him in).

personally if one statue i would have jh rather than ks but if a statue of leader would be ks

look at elland road the 60s/70s side was practically same eleven (in the days of 1 sub) a team of internationals but statue of one person captain bremner

Cunningham's statue is comical and totally over the top. Sorry folks, but it looks like a big gold turd. The thought of Kev "immortalised" in this way sends a shudder down my spine. Maybe in 20 or 30 years time when he's an old boy like me it might be appropriate on some anniversary to have a tasteful bust or plaque installed at HQ or perhaps a stand named after him if we ever get around to sorting one out. The man himself should be honoured the way he played the game, professionaly with dignity and humility and not seeking personal glory.
You know, like having a gigantic gold statue of himself planted right outside the ground.

would schoey want one of himself?