I was surprised not to see him as part of the England youth teams for next year. Thought he was much higher regarded in the game.

I don't know if it is just Wakey fans adding two and two together and getting five, but heard from a few that the guy they signed for next year, Anderson is it? only signed a one year contract as Leeds are watching him next year with a view to taking Kylies place in 2015.

Not sure of the age groups now, but if England Youth are Under 16s then he's not going to be eligible this year and it's a big step up to England Academy which are Under 19s?

Scott Anderson is only on a one-year deal which seems a bit odd. 70 first grade games in an 8-year career though doesn't fill you with confidence.

He's also good mates with Ben Cross, so I can't see Leeds coming with a glowing report somehow. Of the two, Matt Ryan would have probably been the more interesting addition and probably has the better pedigree.

Under 18's I think. But I think a lot of them are quite established.

Maybe this will give a bit of a clue rlhttp://www.sportinglife.com/rugby-league/news/article/480/9068468/mcdermott-backs-duo-to-shinerl
Lets hope BM believes in what he is saying to the rest of us.

We've f*cked up.

We'll pay the price partly this season but mainly next season.

The answer you gave swerved away from the actual question I asked though "Was the offer derisory?". The best way to judge whether it was "derisory" IS to compare it to what other promising youngsters through the GH years have been offered. If it was similar then nothing wrong was done by the club, but in fact they actually followed your suggestion according to McDermott "we made him (Baldwinson) an offer that was above his current position within our structure."

Part of what you said does ring true. Some players should be paid more for what they bring to a club.....however that would be for established first teamers, NOT 18 year olds who have yet to make their debuts in a salary cap sport.

1. McDermott says that Baldwinson was offered more than the club normally would for someone at that stage in their careers.
2. Or that they don't want to put too much pressure on young forwards until they've developed more physically and would rather ease them in surrounded by plenty of experience. Some on here won't be happy until academy lads are allowed to waltz into the 1st team at the first possible chance.
3. Yep medal winners are safe in the knowledge they'll always have their spot.......Kinds regards K.Senior, B.Webb, L.Smith, A.Lauitiiti and their 15 GF winners rings.....read in their places for the 2012 GF - K.Watkins, Z.Hardaker, B.Jones Bishop, S.Ward.
4. Who knows, maybe he did like what he saw. But preferred the type of money coming from NZ that we realistically cannot even come close to trying to match and would be incredibly stupid to even try.

We lost him because of the massive difference in financial strengths in the two competitions, it's as simple as that. But some need to pick apart the club and paint it as their fault whilst poor innocent 19 year olds and rumoured $70,000 a year and laying in the sun in Auckland Baldwinson is the person who has the role of victim somehow.

Give Singleton a real chance. Quality props like James Graham and Sam Burgess were tearing it up at his age. Remember, he's 21 not 16 and we can't treat him like a baby forever. Agree with most about Achurch and just hope he dosn't develop into being just another Kirk.

You could always take Lauaki off our hands...

oh FGS, this again.

Peacock was the best prop in SL last year by a distance, and will be good for next year and quite potentially 2015.

Kylie will drop to the bench (for Singleton) this year, and retire at season end.

Kirke will see out his contract as a squad/bench player. We can expect a replace & retire schedule of something like:

2014

Leuluai

2015

Peacock

2016

Kirke & JJB

2017

Bailey

1. Just because the club offered him more than other kids doesn't make it a good offer - they could have offered £100 more.
2. If you want to have seasons where winning anything is off the agenda keep re-signing players who quite clearly have seen better days - do you think the likes of Peacock, Lueulai, Kirke and Bailey are going to show improvements or declines. Do you think 1/2 games in the first team is really going to develop the likes of Baldwinson?
3. Yes Ryan Bailey, Jamie Peacock, Kylie Leuulai, Ian Kirke, JJB can bring their medals in safe in the knowledge that they will get selected. These are the players that Baldwinson is competing against not Keith Senior, not Lee Smith all of which is just fog knitting.
4. Why would the club be stupid to match the money on offer in NZ if he is an exceptional talent - the game is short of genuine class players - NZ$70,000 is about 35k hardly a fortune.

The financial strength is not in play here, this is not Sam Tomkins - the money he has been offered is not massive, it is about GH his salary structure and the amount of monies he pays to long established players. If you want to develop/keep the best youngsters you have to pay them and play them. If you want to lose all the best talent continue to insult them with unrealistic offers.

Completely agree Sal!
Printer-Who is portraying Baldwinson as some sort of victim or ever suggested 18/19yr old just waltz into the 1st team??
The issues have been explained over and over again do you sign players like Moore to carry water/be a bit part player and re-sign players like Kirke or give an extra few quid to the England u19 captain and best young Forward at the Club and at the same time ROTATE the squad so he gets gametime?
You've already pointed out the way Ali ,Smith & Senior et al have been handled so why not fringe/not up to it forwards?
Its also clear we got it wrong with Amor so really irrespective of success mistakes have been made re-squad retention and recruitment.
Finally Baldwinson and Tonks NEVER asked for the Club to match the NZ offer and BOTH were had more than enough desire to play for Leeds thats not hear say ,myth or rumour thats straight from those involved and some still at the Club!"

I have been told that Baldwinson's move to the NZ Warriors doesn't quite end his association with the Rhinos as some on here are believing

I have been informed that Baldwinson wasn't going to get regular games in SL for the next couple of seasons, so could GH have possibly allowed him to move to the best possible level of footy available to him and whilst also letting him example life outside of his comfort zone and in a beautiful country too?

The Rhinos only lose the game of poker IF baldwinson actually makes the grade after his trial period in the juniors ends over there and that they actually offer him a full time contract for the first team squad

I wouldn't be surprised to see him back at the club in two years time and as a much better player than the one who left..... unless he has a Burgess type effect on the Warriors, Then good luck to him i say

People whinging that £12K is not much for a full time job are correct.

However, when you consider that included in that offer was also the opportunity to go to college/university to study for a career apart from playing rugby then it is a pretty good offer.

Is he getting the same education over in NZ as he would have got whilst at Leeds? If not and the worst happens and he gets a career ending injury or he just doesnt improve to the required standard, he may then have to spend a number of years out of employment and paying fees to get qualifications - he could be financially worse off.

Now if you asked is getting £12K per year for going to college / uni a good deal then I think very few would say it wasnt!

Those people who say that he should have been offered say £20K per year (or more) for three years have to consider how this would have impacted on the salary cap. A single offer as such has little impact but if two or three exceptional players per year were offered this (for three year deals) then the cumulative total could be £48 - 72K per year! Given the first and second tier salary cap values of £165K and £75K respectively, this could impact on the long term competitiveness of the team. And that is before you even consider lower paid squad members and lower ranked acadamy players may also want more money because when you alter the pay structure, it has a ripple effect through the club to other players. Also consider how this extra spending would impact on the overall finances of the club.

I am not saying that he shouldnt have been offered more but it isnt just as simple as saying its only a few thousand pounds.

On the education thing - not many employers would pay for you to study something that was completely unrelated to the job you are employed to do - seems a distraction to me. All his energies should be channelled into the very thing he is employed to do i.e. rugby.

On a career threatening injury he will be insured against that - the insurance will provide him with the security to commence studying if needs be.

On education - he will know within 2/3 years whether he is going to make it as a professional so that is not a huge time frame to go without education. If he doesn't make it then he will get the education for the same cost as everyone else i.e. a student loan.

The salary structure - perhaps if we didn't renew the contracts of older and sub standard players then maybe we would have the monies to pay a bit extra to exceptional youngsters? It might also encourage better youngsters to come to Leeds?