I| see no difference between how the club is handling Ward to how they handled Sinfield.

I don't know whether WIgan lose any junior players they would rather retain. I do know they have lost their brightest Academy produced star in Tomkins which just goes to show you can't fight market forces.

If the players had a brain they wouldn't need to hand over a % of their earnings to an agent. After all, we're a sport with a very low salary cap. How much greater a % increase can an agent really get you? All they can do is persuade you to switch clubs to boost your earnings.

I think that is exactly where we have the difference of opinion. I strongly believe, and why I have the view I have, that the players at that age are not moving for an increase in their basic wage. There is more to it than that.

I think you're giving way too much credit to how much thought a 16 year old brain puts into a decision like this.

You are wrong on that Printer. There is a lot of thought goes into it. They are working for it from 13 these days.

Two of the lads in my lads team at under 13's have already been approached by a agency, and there is many more out there.

This game has moved on from the days of amateur, and having pints, and taking up the sport late in life. I would encourage people to go watch the Leeds schools North v South match at Headingley in a couple of weeks, and see some of these kids, and see where their future goes.

Yes but if you think about his age and the future a bit more, at 16 he's still around 3 years away from being a first teamer. That would be McDermott's 7th year in charge which is very unlikely in RL...so for anyone at that age to think "I'll move because I might have to wait under this coach" is very short sighted. Like has been pointed previously, by that time Sinfield and McGuire will definitely be too old or even gone. Also looking at Warrington, have they really done a great job introducing kids to the first team.....most seem like Leeds, forced through injury. As for halfback how long have they been messing Gareth O'Brien about before settling on Bridge, a utility guy they bought from Bradford many years ago. Also I doubt Smith will still be at Wire when the time comes for this lad to make the step up.....who knows they might hire McDermott to replace him.

Again. This is where I have the difference of opinion, and it is not limited to this lad.

Why is it 3 years away? You are making that statement because of how Leeds have changed their system and how they currently work, not because that is the way it should be.

If you are good enough you are old enough. And age should not be the barrier to first team, which was the point I was making.

I doubt any team in the competition will play a halfback regularly before the age of 19 unless for injuries. And as we've actually seen with Stevie Ward (physically needs to grow) and Sutcliffe (not looking like a HB) then the "good enough old enough" line is just a weak line people like to roll out and doesn't carry much substance.

Like I mention at Wire they've had Gareth O'Brien at halfback who made his debut for them at the age of 19. He'll be 23 at the end of this season and he's made 29 appearances for them since his debut. Why would you look at Warrington as any kind of better bet for progressing to the first team? If you look at Wire's 1-17 when fit then how many academy lads get in? Did they replace Morley with a young lad or bring an over the hill Asotasi in?

Did Saints put too long a faith in Lomax, Gaskell and Wheeler as halves? Or did they do out and buy Hohaia and play the likes of Wellens and Wilkin there.....what's that say to their youngsters? When Tomkins left did Wigan trust a young lad or bring in a 30+ for a few years? Brought Pettybourne in, a couple of London guys, just got Joel back from Union.

Will these clubs play youngsters less when the new structures come in in 2015 with less playoff spots and relegation going on?

Don't kids have to stay in full time education until they are 18 these days?

If so it might have an impact on our whole youth structure and how soon we progress youngsters into the first team.

Stevie Ward played first team whilst in Education.

It was a good point mind you, but I don't think that education holds back their talent.

I also think it is worth noting. Printer says 19 for first team, I don't think he will be alone on that, purely because that appears how Leeds are now playing it. However, of the home grown players come through the academy to win a Grand Final for Leeds, I believe there is only Hall and Clarkson, who had turned 19 before making their debuts. Of the other 15 players, they were 16, 17, and the majority just turned 18.

I would say that probably the change has more to do with the changes to the academies. For most of ours they were playing under 20's at 16. Now most of our under 19's are at the older end. I think Wigans as an example are mostly younger end.

19 btw is an age I think when they should at earliest in most cases be having a 'run' in the team. I'm not counting them out of having a game or two here and there at 18.

Again, I said at the start, different circumstances produce different results, and are uncomparable.

I am unsure how comparing a player who was not a star young player at Warrington with a lad who is rated the best in the country for his age in his position is comparable. The only comparison is the same players at the same age. You are talking about a player in Smith who was playing under 16 international at 14. Not many times that happens, because some young players are miles better than other young players, that's how it goes. It's those miles better than you look for any club to try and have for your team, and see what you can do with them.

As you have pointed out above. It might be that the halfs might not work for him (or wing for a winger, or loose for a 13), and they see a different position for him as more beneficial. You only work that out by firstly seeing how they cope with it. Saints did it, as you said, then decided they wanted to go another route. All three are still regular super league, when one of them is off the treatment table.

This seems to be moving once again to a point of if you say players can play from a younger age, then you are only saying regularly. That is not what is being said at all, and somehow it always moves there. There is a big difference between regular place, and occasional to show exactly what needs to be worked on.

I don't disagree. But what is wrong in them having a go at 16 if they are a highly regarded junior to see what they can do and need to improve? That is a go, not a regular place. Unless they really excel at it.

Sinfield and Walker were 16, and the two Smiths we have in our Juniors are the equal of their reputations at the same age.

So which players are leaving Leeds and making their first team debut's at a young age?

Every time we see a young player leave leeds for somewhere else we see some hand-wringing that something recently has gone very wrong at academy level. We saw it a few years ago when Learmonth went to Warrington, he is now at Hudds U19's whilst Rob Mulhern has played first team for Leeds, as have Minchella, Walters and R Ward as well as Minns and Foster last year.

We saw it when last year Baldwinson left, even though he debuted at 18, but he apparently left because of the poor state of the leeds conveyer belt. Less than a year later he re-signs for Leeds.

Nick Scruton played at 17, he has suffered pretty badly through injuries. Gaz Carvell debuted at 16, he has suffered badly aswell.