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.

Last thing you should be doing with 16-18 year old kids is flog them in the gym or bulk them up too quickly. I'm happy to let the educated professionals in these matters set out fitness and strength programmes for the young players. Unless you know better, obviously?

I would take him for sure.JP aside,as it stands he is probably better than all our other options at prop and provides great impact from the bench.

Carvell would instantly be our second best prop, which says quite a lot about our current front-row options.

Serious question. Why is it that everyting that Leeds decides, and inparticular since McDermott came, it is accepted that this is the right way as the "professionals" have decided, even if it is different to other clubs? Are the other clubs not "professional"?

Not saying either is wrong, just asking why. As since McDermott came he does seem to do a lot of things different to other coaches.

Signing a older prop doesn't solve the problem it masks it and the issue will rear its head 12 months down the line.

Leeds need another prop. Moore's gone. Yates injured. Let's sign one who can bed in amongst the team.