Well yes actually! IMO it is sound business sense to value, seasoned, proven under pressure at the highest level, reliable squad members (one of whom is still showing improvement) who have committed to Leeds. They are a better short term bet than some unproven promising youngsters who have not shown the same commitment to the club that developed them. Particularly as there are other promising youngsters who have shown a desire to comit to Leeds!

Absolutely! All successful businessmen and businesses take the safe sensible option of the plodding option and never ever take that risk/gamble on the unknown, untested or unproven potential dynamic future option

personally i wouldn't have re-signed kirke and kylie. one or the other for me.
with peacock its a pretty old front row. i would have tried to keep one and bring in a real top class prop to supplement what we have

I wouldn't have re-signed Kirke. He, Leuluai and Peacock will need replacing in two years at the absolute max. Most likely Leuluai at least by the end of next year. I wouldn't have re-signed him and looked to replace him from within the squad next season.

As it is Leeds are in serious danger of having two or even three past-it players on their books, and having to replace a legend of the game at the same time as a quality first team player and a squad player, all in the same position. IMO its unnecessary to delay the replacement of the squad player for so long - I'd rather put his position up for grabs and get it sorted out next season.

It could be said that from his early seasons Bailey regressed as a prop (but not as much as Danny Ward)

Kirke has never reached the heights bailey regressed from.

He was a back row player for when people were tired, and I too think it was the 2011 final he was quoted as saying happy to stand in for jp for 10 minutes. Hardly going to demoralise the opposition seeing him warm up.

In cricket terms it would be a batsman knowing he'd nearly seen off the opener and the trundler with long hops coming on.

I see no problem with having those players on the books. You would hope by the end of this year/start of next, Singleton has pushed one or two of them a rung down the pecking order. But having a player like Kirke in reserve is pretty useful. The only problem will come is if by the end of next year, our front line props are, Peacock, Bailey, Kylie and Kirke because then we are trying to replace our frontline rather than a bit in the front line and a bit in reserve.

I see no point in having Kirke on the books if the plan is to replace him - which would have been my plan for the reasons I mentioned (i.e. get his replacement done before we have to replace Leuluai and Peacock). Replacing him means playing someone else - maybe a few others until somebody gets the role. In which point there'd be no reason for him to be at the club.

However, it seems clear that the club don't intend replacing him for two years - that's what I disagree with. If they see him as being part of the 17 every week, then of course they should have re-signed him.

I don't agree with that. Kirke just gives us an extra body, the current injury crisis shows what can happen. In 2012 we had Smith who we let go and Keinhorst got games instead, likewise in 2013 we let Griffin go and Singleton got moved up the order. Their is no guarantee (despite those more knowledgeable telling us so) that the same won't happen again with Kirke (or Moore).

I will get called a Kirke lover (even though I'm not fussed about him) but I really don't understand the OTT reaction to his contract extension. As some posters keep telling us......we are DOOMED.....yet the best arguments they can come up with for this are a 4th choice prop and a reserve winger (Vickery). I'm not saying all will be peachy in the future but if those are the 2 key points in their arguments then i'll still sleep easily.

Printer -From my own pov i'm not implying at all that we are doomed but can see the inevitable when we have to replace 2 frontline Props and 1 bench prop ALL in the next 2 yrs!
Imo we have a missed a chance to replace at the very least Kirke and also faze in Kylies replacement.
Hopefully Singleton will be retained long term and get plenty of gametime and Bailey can regain his best form more consistently.
That still sees us with a 2yr deal for Kirke and Moore for the next 1 yr who i don't see as having much impact plus Jp and Kylie departing in the next 18 mths/2yrs IF they don't pick up injuries with no serious replacements waiting in the wings.

How many pages behind the Ryan Bailey thread are we now.

For what it's worth, I don't think kirke should have been extended. I look back at the Wigan team of the late 80's /90's and they knew when to release players (many of whom we signed) consider Stephenson, Goodway, Hanley, Gregory to name a few. Good as they still were they had passed their peak and Wigan either brought replacements in or trusted their junior development. Granted bringing replacements in now is more difficult but if you have a player who's 4th choice prop at the club and is getting on, you might as well release that place for a youngster and get them playing.

Kirke adds another dimension to my viewing pleasure when I watch Leeds. No-one else could do what Kirke does quite like how Ian Kirke does it. Makes it look an art form.

There's not really any such thing. There are four props in a matchday seventeen. All four will see playing time (though not always with some coaches) and all four should contribute.