Spencer Darley and Reece a Chapman Smith first two announced. I thought Reece had signed last year, forgot about him because of injury. He is a really good player.

Well so far Cuthbertson has turned out ok & Bellamy rated Garbutt so that will do for me at least until we see him in the flesh.

No real surprises I don't think in that group?

It's a very good group of players, only one surprised at was Waring, but you never know. At least, as I said, we got the crown jewel. That deal from what I hear really took some persuading, the kid was wanted across the globe, but Wire and Wigan really did make big offers, but we had the upper hand. I just hope the club don't waste it now, and really do give this lad the right path to the top.

Spencer Darley, Reece Chapman-Smith, Harvey Whiteley, Mikolaj Oledzki, Jack Walker, Tom Hall, Nathan Waring, Alex Sutcliffe, Dyson Nicholson and Cameron Smith all signed up for next season. Cameron Smiths deal is a full time four year deal and will have the opportunity to train with the first team next season.

Good news, and some big units there! Is Louis McConnel 1st year?

Yeah, not 16 until November.

Cam Smith is an absolute freak of nature for a lad that age, but equipped with a rugby brain to match. He won't struggle physically with the step up to Under 19s, neither will Whiteley IMO.

Whitley reminds me of Issac Luke, and I have to say I've been as impressed by him and Jack Walker as I have Cam Smith. The skys the limit for those 3.

With them moving up so many, I just hope they have realised the previous mistakes and took a new view now and going to work to a different plan. Since the introduction of under 19's Leeds as a club have gone with too many at the older age group end in the 19's rather than develop the younger element of it. Some of these older players nowhere near as good as the younger. Look at Wigan, Saints, and Warrington under 19's in the last couple of years to see the difference.

This is a good batch of players and hopefully they will mix them all in with the two or three that came up last year and work the 19's that way. See how they go.

It's Catch 22 with young players. You don't want talented 16-17 year olds drifting away because their route to a spot in the 19s is blocked by an 18-19 year old, but then again you don't want to jump to judgement too early on an 18 year old who might turn out to be a late developer.

One reason why I'd like to see Under-21s and Under-18 competitions. The 21s gives you the chance to take a proper look at those kids who might be the next Jamie Peacock in terms of their development, while making the scholarship Under-18s means you're not having to rush to judgement on a 16 year old in deciding whether to keep them on or not.

I don't disagree on your second point, but the first one like I said, we used to work with developing them from the under 16's, and when you look at our competition they too have their 19's with the younger ones in. In a lot of cases and whilst I understand your point on catch 22, we have held on to some that would never in a blue moon be of the right standard.

You wonder whether clubs committing to support players with their continuing education, e.g. through their A Levels or equivalent, is influencing their decision to keep some players on?

Once you've made that two year commitment to a 16 year old, do you feel obligated to see it through even if 12 months in it becomes apparent they're not going to be of the required standard?

It's a very valid point. The reason we lost Morgan Smith, wasn't entirely because of wages, as some people think. We lost him because Warrington gave him a 4 year deal, with support during his A/Levels and the first two years of University tuition fees if he goes. Leeds learnt from the mistake of losing him, hence why they went to the 4 year deal for Cameron this time. But like you said, the longer the contract the harder to get out.

Perhaps 21's and 18's as you suggested would aid this a little bit more.

I always think its harder to spot a good young forward as they have so much more physical development to come and dont mature as players until at least their 20's whereas backs and halves usually show their potential in ball handling and pace at an early stage. Then again we have a track record pretty much second to none and a commitment to develop these kids on and off the field so I think the clubs in good hands

I am going to take two issues with your post.

One, it is not true about the good young forward. You can spot it if they are going to make it before there full physical development. Yes, some may well come good later, but the absolute majority are clear from day one whether they have it or not. The physicality dilemma is the same for backs and forwards, its just the experience and timing of development that differs.

Two, we had a pretty good track record. The issue we are discussing above is since the introduction of the under 19's set up. So what happened before this isn't of relevance to what we are talking about.