It saves them money which is what getting rid of the u20's was all about. Just stains and wire objected, but where they have both managed to find a partner club, Wigan of course hasn't, which is quite ironic really.

Leeds also have the advantage of being able to place players at their kick and clap club.

I thought Hetherington's motivation was the fact that he believes it is obvious as to whether a player is SL standard by the time they are 18/19. So there is no point in keeping these players to age 20 and above. I am certain he is quoted on this, but I can not find the reference at the moment. With a large pool of young players available to Leeds, he is probably not bothered even if he is wrong (Chris Hill anyone ?).

But to be fair for every Chris Hill there are probably 50 or more players who have come through the Superleague academy systems who are now playing lower division amatuer or not even playing at all.

As you know I have been one of those most against the changes this year.

That is a fair point. But remember, the RFL's own data show that for every intake of U16,s , only two will become SL players. So it is difficult to predict who will, and who will not 'make it'. Yes, there are stand out players of an early age, who everyone will agree are going to be stars of the future, but I am not sure about the rest. Could you with any certainty pick out who will, and will not succeed from the current Wigan U18's ?

Either way, getting rid of the U20 (overage) class was a horrendous cock up. There is nowhere to play the 1st team squad members as well as the over 19's. It has set Championship chairmen against one another, caused a furore within their supporters, created an awful lot of ill will towards the SL clubs, and seriously eroded the value of the Championship.

Some players are still growing at 19 and 20.