A greater danger IMV is that we could lose players to the NRL if their clubs come calling offering big bucks.
Then all the best succession planning goes out of the window.
What would happen if we lost Hall, Hardaker & Watkins to the NRL or worse still to the RFU?

I'd imagine from a Leeds business point of view they'd prefer it if the RFU came sniffing around rather than the NRL. I'd have thought it much better to have hard cash in contractual compensation than a hypothetically beneficially twinning arrangement that produces very little or at least very little on the face of it.

None of this has happened yet - perhaps it won't - but when players have left in the past the club have tended to give other players an opportunity and carry on being able to field a team at the weekend.

that is how its been used. its a big step up from 19's to championship, just as its a big step up from championship to super league, its the natural progression.

There are a few players that will jump the dual reg step because they're ready & good enough at 16/17 to be playing super league, but most will go u16 > u19 > dual reg > first team. Just as in previous years they went u16 > u18 > u21 > first team, you argument is basically saying that in previous years anyone who was u18 would not play for the u21's they go straight into first team.

Gotcha - Gotcha.....well put MHL

From what I have seen of him he is a liability and they might be better not having a 13 on the pitch at all - metaphorically speaking of course.

From reading a story with Ryan Hall I don't think he'll be going anywhere. He was talking about adopting again once his little nipper has gotten older so it seems he wants to stay here for some time yet

Burrow signed up till the end of the 2015 season, signed a new deal last November

The dual reg is the right idea. I am 18 and play rugby on a weekly basis. The step from playing at your own age and open age is massive....it will be a huge step for the likes of Watson, Sutcliffe etc to be playing against men on a weekly basis (at Hunslet) plus they are playing against seasoned professionals such as Jim Gannon, Sean Penywich (spelling) and also against recent SL players like Crossley, Briggs and Pryce which will only develop their game.

This is coming from a personal point of view. My own game developed when I played against a 40 odd year old Dean Sampson (he's at Fryston), still a powerhouse and is better than the Yorkshire Men's League but just watching him and playing against him can develop a player.

So if you read the YEP today it says that Briscoe is not joining Leeds - is that because we have signed Keiron Dixon? Maybe not on both accounts.

It looks like Mcdoughnut wants to keep his squad trimmed again for next season, still maybe only 22 players getting a look in.

He also talks about Bailey, Kirke and Vickery being out of contract at the end of the season. I think Bailey will sign again on his Pay-as-you-play contract of £500 a game, but I think Kirke will probably end up at Wakey/Cas and Moore will have to leave as he must be fed up by now.

He says Vickery needs game time and needs to go out on loan, as he cant get in the Hunslet side. Looks like the writing is on the wall there.

All in all - if they wanted any of the above they would have signed new contracts by now. There is a rule that after April other clubs can approach players. So if Leeds really wanted these then they would have been tied in by now.

So looks like we will have a couple of new props for next season then.

W55ARE-GH says clearly they hope to retain the whole squad including Kirke and Bailey and that they hope to get Vickery out on loan how do you get that we'll have a couple of new props for next year from that???

If you read it properly he said we wants to retain his squad, rather than sign other players.

So expect all of the above to keep where they are (expect Vickery who needs to get playing somewhere).

So no signing of Briscoe as they must be happy with the options that are serving us well at the moment (Hall, Watkins, BJB)

Kylie decided to stop on another year and signed a contract that week.

Why would GH wait until the window opens so these 3 can talk to other clubs. If he wanted them they would be tied in now.

Example: At the beginning of the season an Ozzy team were interested in signing Zak Hardaker. GH immediately got him in an extended his contract. So if they want to keep them then they would be signed up by now - or these players see their future is at another club next year and dont want to sign i.e Bosman ruling (if there is such a thing)

GH has often said that Leeds make their decisions on out of contract players at the end of the season, following a review with the coaching staff.

If another team expresses an interest in the meantime, they may look to tie the player up ahead of the end of the season, or give them permission to talk to them if they think the player would benefit from moving on.

Is Singleton OOC at the end of the year? His name wasn't listed in the YEP article the other day with our other OOC players, but I'm sure I've read on here he was OOC.

That is if they remember who is out of contract or not.