Well ironically Leeds threw money about like there was no tomorrow in the 80's & 90's, all those big name players, yet like you say from 2004 having invested in youth, became successful, with the likes of McGuire, Burrow, Sinfield etc, etc. Being successful occasionally is obviously far easier than sustaining it over 10, 20 years. I would just settle for what Salford have done recently! I started mid 80's as a kid, what have we done? Won the Yorkshire cup in '92 & the First division G/F in '98..............think that's it?!

Hope you don`t mind me butting in here Moggy, haven`t really been following the thread but on this comment; I often wonder if Leeds were just extremely lucky with the likes of Burrow, Sinfield, Hall and McGuire coming through at the same time and playing to that level or if somewhere along the line Leeds have neglected placing so much emphasis on youth development as I really can`t think of that many very good products to come from Leeds for a good few years and you quite often here of them throwing young players to one side and them going on to make a good player away from Leeds.

I think there is probably an argument to be had, that been able to bring in some top talent to throw in with your homegrown players helps there chances drastically of becoming a good standard SL player, especially in the very early stages of there careers and I would probably think in the positions like wingers were they are provided with a platform to look very good if they can take there chances and also are very rarely let down by the blokes inside of them in defence.

Wigan are said to have an endless conveyor belt of talent ready to step in, I don`t really question that but I do think been at Wigan definitely helps them and I often wonder if the likes of Liam Marshall came through at Wakefield at the same time as Dale Morton did, would there stories have been a whole lot different?

Don't mind at all! You make some good points, and yeah luck does come into play, as with lots of other things. Those Leeds youngsters mentioned are probably players that come along in a group maybe every 25, 30 years given their talent? Same at Man Utd, with Giggs, Neville, Scholes etc, but would they have been as successful without the guiding hand of Sir Alex?! There are obviously loads of elements into the making of a successful team aren't there, my argument is it just simply isn't down to money, but i'm sure history shows it's harder without money! Don't get me wrong also, I know how hard it is for clubs like ours to get hold of 15 to say 18 year old kids, who have potential, and how they always seem to end up at Wigan, Leeds, Saints etc, obviously at that age parents have a big say etc. as to where they end up.

"Success breeds success" seems to be the obvious quote to use here. Players are drawn to joining successful teams and so the better players inevitably end up at the more successful clubs. Those clubs can then pick and choose which ones are going to be top notch and discard the rest for the less successful clubs to pick up the pieces.
In the same way (and failure is a harsh word but) failure breeds failure. Clubs get so used to not achieving success that we accept any slight blip as a massive achievement and then expect to fall away again. That in itself then influences your ability to pick up and retain talented players.
In my eyes you probably need to get 2 or 3 sustained seasons of better than expected achievement to then be able to start building from. We've managed 1 or maybe even 2 but not been able to sustain it longer than that.
How we get that catalyst is another thing entirely and not something I have an answer to, sadly!

Leeds were known for not paying the best wages ,but could attract the quality of the players by offering them a much better chance of winners medals than signing for another team for more money but less chance of silverware. This dangling of the carrot certainly seemed to work in the sinfield era

I've heard that said a lot and I don't doubt it's true, but equally, I'm sure their top players weren't poor.

Your right pop tart I doubt it would be a pittance, and can turn out be a very short career for some unfortunately . But I do think the draw of medals will have swayed some players into not chasing the wage as apposed to the glory . Unfortunately for us at this present time we can offer the lower wages no problem but would come unstuck when offering the glory . Having said that I would dearly love our club to be in that situation in years to come. I’m hoping the new revamp spurs us all on to bigger and better things .

Absolutely
To be honest, above a certain value, I'd chase the glory too.

Its not just that Leeds pay less. We can I'm sure offer one of their players more than Leeds, we'd just have to reduce the rest of the team wages.
So a player like Peacock as an example could earn more with us, but he'd be on his own, getting battered and winning less than he loses.
At Leeds, earning slightly less, he plays with others of equal calibre, enhancing his value if he does move and more likely to get International honours along the way.

Fifita and TJ are good draws for us. Until his recent issues maybe, players would probably have come to play here because Fifita is here. As a centre you'd want to play alongside Tom.
But when we are struggling with those guys being injured or not playing because they don't want to wear a tracker (!) we end up with Gigot or Innes, with the greatest respect, who no one else wants.

Do not get this Leeds paid poor wages A few year ago Wakefield went after two of Leeds second team .Both said they did not won't to come ,as they were getting paid more to play in the Leeds second team ,than what Wakefild were offering for them to play in the first team

Because it's nonsense. Leeds along with Wigan, Saints, Hull, and Warrington pay top wages, usually, way way more than we do.

What they don't have to do is pay over the odds. If we offer a player X and Leeds match it, the player will generally go to Leeds for overwhelmingly obvious reasons. So Leeds doesn't pay low, they just don't have to pay higher. Interestingly it's less effective with overseas players, who will generally follow the money despite the crud they spout about new challenges.

This is why by comparison most of our SL stars have usually been overseas players as we can't compete at a domestic level.

I think the difference that players stay at Leeds for more than they could get rather than what we could offer.

b
Simple really ,where are these players going to get winners medals ,wakefield or Leeds. As we’ve seen first hand injuries play a big part in any league campaign, would have thought it was a no brainier really , get a chance of a winners medal at leeds or zero chance at wakey . Leeds have always have had bigger ambitions than wakey ,and a young lad starting out would find it hard to resist if called on by the loiners over wakey
It was Sinfield himself who stated this some years ago not some silly chip oil talk

i think if we beat leigh the times we play them that might be enough to survive

I wouldn't sit comfortably if we only had 4/6 points this season. I certainly wouldn't be expecting to stay up.