Mathers got into the Leeds team at the end of 2002. He got a taste of first team action. The coaching staff then signed Connolly for 2003. Mathers was patient and waited for his chance. He took it with both hands.

If Broughton is as good as you and Salford think I wish he'd shown the same attitude as Mathers and waited until he'd earned his chance. Same thing with Hall and Smith, they got first team action, then dropped back into the Academy. Look at Smith's progression to 1st team regular.

Who knows, if Broughton had shown the same attitude and taken the same career paths as the three you name he too could have been a RL international, playing in the NRL or making a big money move to RU.

As it is, he's playing on the wing for Salford.

So I've noticed. =#FF0000Abysmal and Gash being a couple of the more astute observations.



From the ridiculous to the sublime. Hey ho.

I'm a fan of Donalds, I appreciate what he has done for the club. However he can't and won't stay forever. I thought he had intimated in 2008 that 2009 was to be his last season over here as he wished to return 'home' with his young family. That for me would have been the right call. Everyone in the game, I think, could see the RFL were seeking to increase the numbers of home grown players and that neccessarily meant the amount of overseas trained would have to reduce in line. Leeds 'perhaps' had already indicated to Donald that their limited quota spots in 2010 were going to be allocated away from the wing. I think Leeds have always regarded the wing as not being an overly critical area in the team and used on occassions as a proving ground for Academy starlets to cut their 1st grade teeth and it's an approach that has served them well in the past. That situation changed with the 'cajones clause' and Leeds were then perhaps minded to take the conservative approach and re-engage with Donald helping to create the best Leeds squad (on paper) since 2004.




You'd have to ask him, I don't think anyone else would know the answer to that.

If the clubs already have their wing spots settled with contracted players there isn't much Broughton could do. As it is, he did a deal with a SL club that had a wing spot available and so far he is taking that opportunity with glee.

To imply that an Academy prospect somehow had the pick of the majority of Super League clubs or that the Super League clubs all bar Salford rejected him is far out dude.



Why would they when they already had their wing positions covered by contracted players? In the age of the salary cap there are several factors to consider on retention, recruitment and succession planning.

Leeds had several options and they took the conservative approach in extending Donald's deal as was their right. That closed the door for another 12 months on Broughton at Leeds (unsubstantiated talk of a contract offer or not(?)) and he backed himself that he was ready to play SL and another SL club stepped in and gave him that opportunity.

While Leeds have been forced in to playing two part time players plus a recent amateur rugby union player (described by one poster as a 'desperate gamble' in Feb 2010) on the wing in Donald's absence, Broughton has continued his SL education and appears to be making good progress and earning complimentary reviews from coach McRae.

Nice side step. The Bulls didn't have their wings covered by contracted players. They signed Reardon this off-seaon.

Reardon.

The 28 year old former Great Britain International (try scorer V Australia), Grand Final winner, Harry Sunderland winner, fitting the criteria McNamara was looking for. I'll let Steve take over the point: [i"Everybody knows the quality of Stuart Reardon as a player and his ability to break tackles and get the ball over the try line. We're very excited to have him and Stuart is just as excited to be here. When he left Bradford Bulls he was still a young boy in a side surrounded by senior players. Now he is coming back as a senior player and we are very confident in his ability to be a fantastic player for us again." [/i

If you are looking to add an experienced player why would you consider a player (even a good one) just emerging from Academy rugby?

That's it. You quoted Steve McNamara as an authority. Need we go on?

Do YOU rate the present Stuart Reardon (the one discarded by Hull and Warrington, the one who has barely played in three or four seasons) as a better player than Broughton? If YOU were a coach would you sign Reardon in preference? Which presents more of a gamble, the three year injured Reardon or the emerging Broughton?

If Reardon, with his record and history of achievements in the game, is a better signing for the Bulls than Broughton why is Donald for Leeds not a better option given what Donald has achieved in the game during the last four seasons?

Because Donald is an Aussie and we've broken tvocs non exsistent "quota" rules

Just to add that i may be wrong but i'm sensing a tvoc "agenda" with our strawberry blonde try machine.

You have to keep an eye on that with TVOC.

He always has an agenda.

As do you and most people on here. Not many people come out of a discussion saying, well that certainly changed my view on things

Moi.

Hrumph.

How very dare you!

How so?

As anyone suggested you have an agenda re Keith Senior?

Did you see his piece in the YEP addressing your criticisms from last week?

[iRhinos hope to have Sinfield back in action on Thursday, but Senior is happy to continue as captain if required. "I enjoy it," he said. "=#FF0000You feel like there's a bit more pressure and you have to do that little bit more. =#FF0000It showed last Friday. I felt like I was running all over the field, at one point – I ended up defending in the right-hand centre. =#FF0000You feel like you need to put your hand up a little bit more." [/i




Isn't Steve McNamara 'the' authority on how he wants to develope 'his' own squad? I quoted a SL coach stating his reasons behind making a signing. Reasons that on the face of it appear reasonably valid. He says he was looking for a senior player with a proven track record and that's what he got in Reardon and what he wouldn't have got had he signed a promising young player.

It'd be like a coach wanting to sign a young impact hooker and signing an ageing eighty minutre hooker instead. No coach would do that would they?



=#FF0000www.slstats.org/p411/Stuart+Reardon.html


Now that I'm in the position of head coach I would take an overview of the way I wanted to assemble the squad. If I was looking for experience, versatility and a proven track record - (as coach McNamara stated) I suppose I would be inclined to sign such a player.

If I were in the position to make a straight choice between the two (V Donald or V Reardon) then I would have given British youth it's chance in 2010 but as I have no insight into the working of coach McNamara's or coach McClennan's minds, then just like everyone else on here, mine is a meaningless opinion.



I didn't say it was a better signing (I don't think it is) but it's the signing they chose to make in their particular circumstance. At the time of the Reardon signing wasn't Broughton seeking to follow Lee Smith down the Union road anyway? Bradford may not have been given the option of securing Broughton's services if his agent (Endacott) is busy trying to fix him up in the other code.



I'm not having any of that. I demand to be the only contributor on RL Fans that has an opinion.

What Do We Want?

=#FF0000An Agenda

When Do We Want It?

=#FF0000Now

All you've banged on about when people have expressed an opinion that Donald is a lot better than Broughton is the "quota" whenever there's a discussion about the squad and players released it's Donald and the quota you say yourself he's an ageing aussie who re-signed late and is on the quota(That's how i read yer comments if not word perfect).
I'm perfectly happy with my opinion re-Senior no agenda straight forward opinion and happy to be proved wrong by him IF he stays another year.
Whatever is thrown your way re-the squad imo you go on about the quota and Donald.
The facts are Leeds were in a position to sign him (Broughton) if they thought he was worth it and not offer Donald a new deal they chose the latter but you still won't have it than Donald who's proven his worth since he's been here is worth keeping over a player the club have hardly broken down doors to keep.
Now if you don't think that's an agenda then that's your opinion i just get the impression that no matter what evidence or opinion is handed to you it won't change a thing because imo you want rid of Donald and you really are riled by the quota system that we HAVENT breached but you clearly think we as a club are wrong.

And my view that I would have preferred Leeds to promote one of Broughton/Watkins/Jones-Bishop into the squad for 2010 in place of Donald is also straight forward opinion.



Do you agree with every call the Leeds management make? One of Broughton/Watkins/Jones-Bishop I would imagine would have been the cheaper option for the club and IMO the Academy produced players would have adequately replaced the Australian who some (not me) were moved to describe his collective performances in the first 18 games of last season as 'abysmal'. While others were saying he was looking to go home.



As someone once said, 'you turn if you like, the ladies not for tuning.'

Leeds have more 'overseas trained' in their squad than the quota was intended to allow in 2010. I think Leeds were wrong to do that. If Leeds found a way around the salary cap would you go along with that also?

I don't agree with every call no but i'm more than happy that they chose to retain Donald rather than throw Broughton a 1st team start which they clearly didn't think he was up to.
Whatever the quota was "intended" to be is pointless it had more holes in it than a cheap T-bag and rightly scrapped not least because of legal reasons.
If we don't "break" any rule then of course i'm happy that includes the cap.
Afterall isn't up to the CEO to best use his resources whithin the guidelines set?
Other than been australian what reasons can you think of for giving Broughton Donalds place in the team when he hasn't earned it?

Which is all I have done yet you think I should refrain from expressing it.



When was it scrapped, I wasn't aware that it had been. They introduced a 'cajones clause' that allowed existing UK based overseas trained players to challenge their classification. Some will have and some won't have, indeed John Kear has said Ben Jeffries is on quota and that despite him playing over here for the last eight seasons continuously.



Yes he should but IMO he and all the other CEO's also have a moral obligation to the game to not find ways around what the RFL are trying to achieve. Didn't the SL clubs all vote in favour of the new quota regulations when they were introduced for the 2008 season?

So if Webb, Donald, Leuluai, Lauitiiti all applied to come off the quota (which they may all have done already anyway) and Leeds brought in another three overseas trained in addition to Delaney, Buderus and Eastwood bringing up their total to 10 you'd be unconcerned? If it's within the watered down rules lets go for it.



Donald in 2009 was so, so for me. I'd have liked to have seen one of Broughton/Watkins/Jones-Bishop given the opportunity to see if they could match or even exceed Donald's so so performances.

With Lee Smith back in the fold do you see Scott Donald getting a start when all the outside backs are available for selection?

A fallacy discussed at length before now.

There are legitimate exemptions to the basic salary cap which Leeds take full advantage of, just as there are legitimate exemptions to the overseas trained quota which Leeds take advantage of. They're right to do so or the more hard to please supporters within our fan base who wouldn't consider a season like 2009 as an unqualified success would be on the back of the management for not providing the coach with a strong enough squad, as they were during last season.

The existing overseas quota in 2007 was 3 + exemptions.

The new overseas quota introduced in 2008 was 10.

Do you think the RFL (supported by the SL clubs) increased the quota by 7 because they wanted to create more opportunities for 'non home country qualified' players to participate in SL?

I don't think the main objective had anything to do with quota players at all and I think you've missed the point.

The new rules introduced, for the first time EVER a minimum requirement for club trained players. That is an area where the RFL were force other clubs to follow the lead set voluntarily and admirably by Leeds, St Helens and Wigan.

I'm not saying you should refrain at all just don't see any point in it nor do i agree with your "moral" obligation line either.
Re-signing Lee Smith highlights to me what i already thought about GH ,he will do what he and the coaching staff deem best for the club by delivering quality recruitment when he can and when it's available.
It also highlights a great cap/squad management by the club which you were one of it's harshest critics last year because you perceived him to be doing nothing re-recruitment when the Beastwood deal hit visa issues.
As for comparing Donald and Smith that isn't the issue is it?
I thought we were dissagreeing on the club not deeming Broughton good enough to Ditch Donald for this year.
Fwiw i think Smith is 1st choice form permitting but his versatillity also offers the coach the chance to rotate the back line as was intended with the forwards at the start of the season.

Isn't that what the images rights stuff that was being talked about a while ago amounts too

It's also what paying Leeds the prize money from competitions amounts to. Exceptions to a rule provided for by the RFL.

There's enough idiot fans of other teams making insinuations about us without our own fans lambasting us for breaking an imaginary rule that we haven't even broken.

Quote ="G1"I don't think the =#FF0000main objective had anything to do with quota players at all and I think you've missed the point. The new rules introduced, for the first time EVER a minimum requirement for club trained players. That is an area where the RFL were force other clubs to follow the lead set voluntarily and admirably by Leeds, St Helens and Wigan.'" Whether it was the main objective or a secondary objective is neither here nor there really as one is a direct consequence of the other. If you introduce a system that broadly distinguishes between an 'overseas trained quota' and a 'UK trained quota' within the permitted 1st grade squad size of 25 (for the salary cap) any increase on one side of the equation leads to a corresponding decrease on the other. The results were the same regardless of which way the RFL chose to sell the new requirements. As was reported at the time the intentions of the RFL were clear: www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... ayers.html [iSuper League clubs have agreed to wean themselves off their dependence on overseas signings. Several sides regularly field up to 12 overseas players, taking advantage of the Kolpak ruling, grandparentage and European passports but now the Rugby Football League are to act to close the loopholes. From next year, at least five members of a first-team squad of 25 must contain players who have either graduated from a club's academy system or are aged under 21. This will increase by one player each year until 2011, when a squad must have at least eight homegrown players. During the same period, the number of overseas players must be reduced from 10 to five. Nigel Wood, the RFL's chief operating officer, said: "This new rule fulfils a long-standing objective to encourage clubs to develop young talented players. By giving them greater opportunity at the top level, it is likely to improve standards not only on a national level but also internationally. =#FF0000Over time, the number of home-born players in a squad will increase whilst the number of players who are not academy, Super League or National League club-trained will be reduced." =#FF0000The 12 club chief executives passed the proposal at their two-day summit in Perpignan[/i......

Quote ="G1"I don't think the =#FF0000main objective had anything to do with quota players at all and I think you've missed the point. The new rules introduced, for the first time EVER a minimum requirement for club trained players. That is an area where the RFL were force other clubs to follow the lead set voluntarily and admirably by Leeds, St Helens and Wigan.'" Whether it was the main objective or a secondary objective is neither here nor there really as one is a direct consequence of the other. If you introduce a system that broadly distinguishes between an 'overseas trained quota' and a 'UK trained quota' within the permitted 1st grade squad size of 25 (for the salary cap) any increase on one side of the equation leads to a corresponding decrease on the other. The results were the same regardless of which way the RFL chose to sell the new requirements. As was reported at the time the intentions of the RFL were clear: www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... ayers.html [iSuper League clubs have agreed to wean themselves off their dependence on overseas signings. Several sides regularly field up to 12 overseas players, taking advantage of the Kolpak ruling, grandparentage and European passports but now the Rugby Football League are to act to close the loopholes. From next year, at least five members of a first-team squad of 25 must contain players who have either graduated from a club's academy system or are aged under 21. This will increase by one player each year until 2011, when a squad must have at least eight homegrown players. During the same period, the number of overseas players must be reduced from 10 to five. Nigel Wood, the RFL's chief operating officer, said: "This new rule fulfils a long-standing objective to encourage clubs to develop young talented players. By giving them greater opportunity at the top level, it is likely to improve standards not only on a national level but also internationally. =#FF0000Over time, the number of home-born players in a squad will increase whilst the number of players who are not academy, Super League or National League club-trained will be reduced." =#FF0000The 12 club chief executives passed the proposal at their two-day summit in Perpignan[/i......

Indeed they were. I'll go even further than red type and super-size their intentions for you.


Like I said, the objective was to encourage clubs to do what we have been doing for years and produce their own young players.

And how do you achieve an increase in 'Home Born Players' without a decrease in Overseas Trained players? You don't that's how, they go hand in hand.

As the RFL's CEO Nigel Wood explains: "Over time, the number of home-born players in a squad will increase =#FF0000whilst the number of players who are not academy, Super League or National League club-trained will be reduced."

I wonder where these 'players who are not academy, Super League or National League club-trained players' originate from. Could it be overseas?

As I have said from the outset the two go together. You cannot increase one without decreasing the other. Put the emphasis on which ever side you choose but the result is the same.

And in addition I'm sure you won't have missed the last sentence either where according to the report: =#FF0000The 12 club chief executives passed the proposal at their two-day summit in Perpignan.....

That always formed part of my argument re the new quota system that the then club CEO's backed it only to sack it when it came to it's implementation after Gene appealed his classification. I can well imagine 'Mr 80/20 split' being to the fore in those discussions leading the case for reform yet here we are in 2010 and his own club is exceeding the overseas trained quota as the RFL intended and the club CEO's voting in favour of.

It surprises me not one iota to see the posters prepared to ignore these contradictions when they arise within the club that they support. They will, at the same time, be ridiculing other clubs for their reliance on overseas trained players and their inability to produce their own Home Grown players to the required standard.