Not released (ie not deemed good enough) - but when an improved contract is rejected. I'll use Joe Burgess as an example. Joined aged 16 and worked his way through the youth system at Wigan, before securing a 3 year professional contract in 2013. At 21, and after turning down contract offers by Wigan, he signs for Sydney Roosters, who have not invested a penny in his development. To me, even though Joe was a free agent, for home-developed players who have only had one professional contract, there should be some form of compensation due to the losing club who have not released the player and tried everything in their power to keep him. Academies need funding and if the clubs are seeing their brightest graduates repeatedly pinched, then there is no incentive to invest in them.

Not sure how you put Flower in the bang average bracket when he's achieved more than plenty of the Leeds players in your list.

For that matter, I'd argue Sarge has had a bigger impact in winning trophys than some of those Leeds names, Ferres, Griffin & Garbutt (so far) to name a few.

Thanks Jeff, I honestly couldn't understand his point as Leeds, to me, as a good mixture of local and signings.

They had the likes of Sinfield, Burrow, Danny Mags, but also brought in the likes of Peacock. Webb, Hardaker, Senior, Kyle to name few.

they aren't signings though (other than Burgess, slight exception as he came back). youth is youth, signings are signings. neither inspired me last year and still have a fair way to go this season to justify what they want or demand.

and again let me point out, i'm not saying our youth isn't good enough, it really is fantastic, but after one or two seasons they seem to think they can take on a team of thurstons and be paid accordingly. so my point remains, I don't think the club is handling them very well.

If only we had the junior set-up that the Aussies have! We see teenagers walk into NRL teams and be star players, whereas their equivalents in SL are undercooked in comparison. And the reason is that those Aussie kids, although only 18 or 19, have been battle-hardened in the tough junior comps there.

And herein lies my point
If gildart has 6 months left on his contract and wire or hull or nrl (slightly different argument) come in and sign him they would see that as a big signing and would pay him accordingly.
Why shouldn't we?
Tom Davies signed a new contract late last year, why shouldn't we see that as a new signing and why shouldn't he get paid in line with his performances and in line with his market value?
Etc.

Now some people can choose not to look at it that way (and tend to be the more critical of posters?).
Some may never have considered that particular view point (I hadn't really up until 4/5 months ago when Someone said it to me). And if they don't agree fair enough, if they do fair enough.

But I wanted to put that argument across so that people consider it when complaining about lack of signings because without a doubt this way of bringing the youth through impacts on what we do with the money at the top end.
Ps. What we then do with the money and who we sign etc from outside (or bring people back) is a different argument.

Not sure why some people would be happy if we signed a Percival and paid him top dollar and would praise the club but we don't seem to appreciate it when the club sign gildart and also want him to be paid less?