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?

Depends really what the older players are earning.
Could be that their terms are much diminished by the time they get to the age of the likes of Peacock and Kylie. It might be that this allows us to offer better terms to players at their peak such as Hall and Watkins which might in turn explain why we've been relatively successful in avoiding the defections to the NRL and RU that have plagued other clubs - also, if true, the perception that the club won't seek to ditch players as soon as they're past their peak may also help to persuade the real key players to stay.
This is pure conjecture but without knowing how our salary structure works I don't feel qualified to comment on the wisdom, or lack of it, in not offering more favourable terms to the likes of Baldwinson.

One of the traditional breeding grounds for props has been the 2nd row. JP is a good example. I would be scouting around for strong running back rowers with a proven go forward game. Next in the Headingley taxi rank is Delaney and followed by Ablett in a few years time.

Good point JC but Ablett in the FR??
I'm still not convinced Delaney at FR either especially given how "battered" his body has been the last 2 yrs.
Will be interesting to see how if it all what impact Yates has when he hopefully recovers from his injury & if the likes of Hallas and Grange make the step up.
I still do feel though that we need to sign at least 1 quality FR in the next 12mths.

Are you seriously suggesting Sal that the club should do nothing to enable its young players to progress into well-rounded individuals prepared for a life outside professional sport?

The average young player might spend fifteen hours a week training if they are on a full-time contract. That leaves them with a significant amount of "idle" time on their hands.

Better they are encouraged to spend it at college getting an education than down the pub or the bookies with their mates, getting into bad habits they can carry through their careers.

On a related note, does £12k a year sound "derisory" for a 15 hour working week? Works out about £30k a year full-time equivalent. Not to be sniffed at as a 17 year old I would say.

I was going to slate Sal for that, but you have done it well enough.
It's about making good people, not just good players.

Maybe a certain Gareth Carvell could do a job for us this year to take the load off JP and Kylie.

What I am suggesting is the club should be doing everything it can to enable the players to excel at what they are paid to do i.e. play rugby.

One of the major differences between SL and the NRL is the level of strength and fitness conditioning - perhaps more time here might help? I bet the youngsters at NRL clubs don't get away with 15 hours a week.

I agree re keeping kids away from the bookies etc but perhaps the club should work them harder than 15 hours a week. Maybe they should be educating them in specifics relating to their job i.e. media training, diet, dealing with sponsors, out in schools etc.

Finally regardless of how many hours a week it is the money is still 12k - and they will be doing more than 15 hours a week - most will be 6-8 on a match alone. Most will have to run a car, getting to a weights session at 5.30 on public transport could be a challenge, for an 18 year old sportsman the insurance will be sky high etc 12k is not a lot.

This is a rumor I heard at the weekend

Help the aging front row with an aging front rower. Classic.

I did wonder about Carvell given the situation at the Bulls, but as you point out, it hardly helps our long-term succession problem. Still, he's a quality prop with proven pedigree in SL, and should count as home-grown. Will be interesting to see if this materialises.