I think they might.... given the very clearly stated planning and structure that GH insists on sticking to

I am old enought to remember the time pre GH when we attempted to sign everything on offer and it was an unmitigated disaster that very nearly bankrupt the club.

I think Mulhern could be a quality prop if given enough 1st team action to keep his development going

It was also only a disaster because another certain club went higher still every time to ensure they were at the top. A situation we don't have now as we have a cap.

Is it really suggested that Huddersfield and Warrington have broken the cap by making their quality prop additions?

Quality Like Schofield and Crooks ...Gallager.... and an odd dozen of so Aussies etc etc .........

just remind me what actual success we achieved on the pitch during that glorious period ??

compared to when we did bring youngsters through from the junior ranks

ie Holmes ...Dyl ...Pitchford ...Cookson... Dick....Dickinson.....etc etc

Think he's one we should be looking at getting a loan gig for next year if the correct club comes along that'll play him, quite disappointed that Baldwinson and especially Tonks can't force their way into this struggling Bradford team.

Baldwinson did at first but then was thrown into a team getting destroyed every week so its no real surprise he has been taken out of the firing line.
I can see both coming back and going on loan/dual reg to regain confidence and up their 1st team minutes.

Sal-re Halfbacks I agree it needs sorting but we do have Burrow to 7 as an option that's why I think the pack is priority!

I am not arguing against you - the golden periods for Leeds have always revolved around times when an exceptional group of youngsters have come together as the core of the team.

I think people have short memories. The likes of signing Schofield and Crooks, can easily be matched in the modern era with the signings of Senior, Peacock, Ellis. Nothing wrong with top signings, as long as to go with them comes the nucleus of home grown.

People just look at pre super league and point to big signings as a mistake, with no idea why.

You could add Lauitiiti, Buderus & Webb to that list.

The point I am trying to make, and not succeeding apparently, is exactly that it always needs a careful blend of of selective quality signings allied to a strong base of home grown talent.

Several posters seemed to me to be suggesting we should just go out and sign any and all sign players ie Huby etc etc and that would resolve a perceived lack of planning for the future growth of the squad by our illustriase leader.

In any business the skill is to change things/introduce new products while the existing range is still at the peak of it's life (based on sales or whatever) & not to wait till things are on the wane.
I believe that what we are all concerned with is that next season may be one too far for both JP & most especially Kylie. We won't knoww this until it's too late.
One of GH's great strengths is IMV his loyalty to all his staff that can, however, also be one of his great weaknesses.
What none of us on here now - well I certainly don't - is the pay structure at the club.
It is very easy for us fans to say we should go out & buy so and so without knowing his pay demands & how that would impact on the overall salary cap & the pay of the other players.
We've heard in the past that some of our stars could have left & earned more elsewhere but that they chose to stay because of the club environment & the way they were treated by the club.
I'm happy to keep on trusting GH on this, he's not let me down before.
I'd love to see us having all the best players here but in a salary capped sport that just isn't possible.

This is true. It wasn't the signings themselves that were the mistake. It was the culture of the club they were made in. Star signings in a sport like RL should be about supplementing and polishing what you have. In the 90s, signing lots of "stars" and generally writing a lot of cheques was the game plan and that was what we relied on.

Success has come when they've been a supplement to add a bit of something extra, and when we've been more careful about the attitude and motivation of those coming in.

You can't really describe bringing in players like Schofield, Hanley and Crooks as a mistake. The problem was that there was no substance underpinning those signings.

Loyalty to established players is no bad thing when it comes to retaining young players. It reduces the quantity who get through, but what about the quality? The message can be "get in the first team now, but you'll be binned as soon as the next bright young thing turns up" or it can be "you'll have to be patient, but if you are the reward can be a decade in the first team and a fistful of championship rings like these guys over here."