: Tue Mar 31, 2009 1:53 pm  

Lord_Percy wrote:

Why bother with loans and grants, just get Carnegie to pay for it like normal

Imagine the confusion though when selling tickets for the Carnegie Stand.

: Tue Mar 31, 2009 1:54 pm  

G1 wrote:

I would imagine GH has never spent up to the full cap. He has very wisely given himself plenty of wiggle room.

From a fans point of view (rather than a bank managers) why was it wise to spend less money than he was permitted to?

Could that underspend partly explain why Leeds have not won a Challenge Cup for nine seasons or as many Championships as they might have given the nucleus of the team was home grown and a major advantage over their rivals?

Never-the-less Greg Eastwood was signed but now isn't coming in this year as had been planned.

If he was needed by Leeds what has altered since his Visa was refused that makes a replacement not necessary afterall?

Which youngster has emerged to fill his ample shorts?

Or did they get it wrong in the first place and Eastwood was never required?

: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:01 pm  

tvoc wrote:

From a fans point of view (rather than a bank managers) why was it wise to spend less money than he was permitted to?

Could that underspend partly explain why Leeds have not won a Challenge Cup for nine seasons or as many Championships as they might have given the nucleus of the team was home grown and a major advantage over their rivals?

Never-the-less Greg Eastwood was signed but now isn't coming in this year as had been planned.

If he was needed by Leeds what has altered since his Visa was refused that makes a replacement not necessary after all?

Which youngster has emerged to fill his ample shorts?

Or did they get it wrong in the first place and Eastwood was never required?

Eastwood was needed. Probably still is. He isn't here because of circumstances beyond the clubs' control.

So the question is, having procured an young NRL regular and full international should the club sign someone else now he is not available and, if so who? If its' not the cream of the crop, like Eastwood can whoever they bring in do a better job than what they already have?

I'd guess the club have weighed up the options, considered who is available and decided not to make a move.

By prudently not spending up to the full cap they will be in a position to make a move should the right player become available later in the season, like Lauitiiti did in the year we won our first championship for 32 years.

Now, about those games JP played in the 2nd row.............

: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:14 pm  

G1 wrote:

Eastwood was needed. Probably still is.

There you go it wasn't that difficult.

G1 wrote:

Now, about those games JP played in the 2nd row.............

Peacock started eleven games in the second row in 2008. It was generally acknowledged even when he did that his role still took him right up the guts of the defence with Leeds operating with three props in the opening twenty. At first interchange they reverted to the traditional two props with a lesser light such as Worrall coming in out wide.

: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:22 pm  

tvoc wrote:

From a fans point of view (rather than a bank managers) why was it wise to spend less money than he was permitted to?

Could that underspend partly explain why Leeds have not won a Challenge Cup for nine seasons or as many Championships as they might have given the nucleus of the team was home grown and a major advantage over their rivals?

Never-the-less Greg Eastwood was signed but now isn't coming in this year as had been planned.

If he was needed by Leeds what has altered since his Visa was refused that makes a replacement not necessary afterall?

Which youngster has emerged to fill his ample shorts?

Or did they get it wrong in the first place and Eastwood was never required?

There is an issue with replacing Eastwood in that he is of a level of ability that hard to match when matched with other boxes he can tick, such as his age, experience and his potential for citizenship. We are left in limbo, becuase he may be here next year. So, we can't go and buy a replacement for him, or we will be overloaded in the 2nd row if we sign 2 players in under a year when we already have a strong group of players there.

It goes without saying that if we lost peacock for a long time, we would struggle this year, but even with Eastwood or an equivalent you would miss his presence and go-forward.

The reason that the Southstand is linked to not buying an in contract is to do with a transfer fee, rather than ability to fit him within the cap.

Its a tricky situation to manage. the best way I can see it going is to buy a player who can cover second row, and either prop or centre, to allow better coverage of positions, and allow us to reveiw the situation when we know more about Eastwoods visa.

the question is that quality players, available mid-season with required versatility are not that frequent, and its essential we get the right player for the team

: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:28 pm  

tvoc wrote:

Peacock started eleven games in the second row in 2008. It was generally acknowledged even when he did that his role still took him right up the guts of the defence with Leeds operating with three props in the opening twenty. At first interchange they reverted to the traditional two props with a lesser light such as Worrall coming in out wide.

"generally acknowledged".

Straying a little from your comfort zone there old bean.

I think you need to revise your earlier post. Unless you're saying Peacock played 42 games for Leeds he did not play 31 games at prop.

Tut tut.

If we're going to start getting into generally acknowledged and positional changes during games look at where players line up at scrums. Is Burrow a centre? Lauitiiti often takes drives close to the ruck. maybe you should add him to our list of props for this year?

Last year we had a real crisis in the centre and back row. As a result Scruton (who was dropped after round 1, IIRC and wasn't considered a fixture at prop by any means as the season began) emerged for the first time as a mainstay of the front row whilst Peacock went back in time and played a large proportion of games in the back row.

Peacock going back to the front row permanently and the further increase in game time for Burgess easily off-set the loss of Scruton.

Then, of course, we appear to have found a gem in 2nd rower Carl Ablett who has been released to his natural position thanks to the emergence of two players in the centres who barely contributed last year, Watkins and Gibson.

Arguably, we have MORE depth this year, even without Eastwood.

: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:39 pm  

leicester_rhino wrote:

the question is that quality players, available mid-season with required versatility are not that frequent, and its essential we get the right player for the team

Leeds 1 to 17 was already at least one player light pre-season and now the Eastwood no-show has magnified the problem. The Champions failed with their close season recruitment and so it definitely makes the job harder to rectify now but whose fault is that?

3 - Toopi
12 - Ellis
17 - Scruton

Replaced by Buderus

: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:51 pm  

tvoc wrote:

Leeds 1 to 17 was already at least one player light pre-season and now the Eastwood no-show has magnified the problem. The Champions failed with their close season recruitment and so it definitely makes the job harder to rectify now but whose fault is that?

3 - Toopi
12 - Ellis
17 - Scruton

Replaced by Buderus

Buderus, Watkins, Gibson and Allen actually.

: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:54 pm  

G1 wrote:

Buderus, Watkins, Gibson and Allen actually.

McShane? Or is he the replacement for Kaye?

: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:55 pm  

Lord_Percy wrote:

McShane? Or is he the replacement for Kaye?

Good point well made.

"Next man Up".

That should be the motto.

....or.....

Get the cheque book out for those who crave the eighties.