: Tue Mar 31, 2009 4:08 pm  

Mr Scruff wrote:

..and therefore it is simple maths.

Are you ok today?

Fine thanks. Just apeing your condescending, brief and pointless method of debate.

Stick to simple maths. Let those that aren't simple stick to assembling a Championship squad of Rugby players, like they have been doing.

: Tue Mar 31, 2009 4:13 pm  

Mr Scruff wrote:

Can you name a prop from within who has the ability to do a "Burgess" this year? And don't even try and mention Ambler; he's way off at present.

I've no idea. I don't watch the Academy that closely. Then again, I couldn't have given you a more meaningful opinion on Burgess at the stage last year.

What was your opinion Burgess' abilities at the start of 2008? Did you post them anywhere?

How much of Ambler have you seen? What about our other Academy props? Are you saying none of them are up to any game time?

: Tue Mar 31, 2009 4:31 pm  

If I'm not wrong at this time last year hadn't Burgess yet to make his debut? This means we were essentially going into the season with 4 props and relying on a youngster if needed.

: Tue Mar 31, 2009 4:36 pm  

Mr Scruff wrote:

But he hasn't come has he.

If we'd signed Fuifui Moi Moi he'd be included. but we haven't have we.

Everything apart from his Visa was in place for him to come. It was only a couple of weeks ago that the saga came to an end. Up until that point he was still a replacement forward.

Manipulating my quote by cutting the part that suits you does you no service at all and suggests that it is not worth debating with you in the first place. I will consider that as an error of judgement on your part on this occasion.

: Tue Mar 31, 2009 4:39 pm  

andy lynch is OOC at the seasons end. a little cheeky bid might be fruitful methinks. a little cash for the bulls for a player who will leave for free at the end of the season and a good signing for leeds.

: Tue Mar 31, 2009 4:42 pm  

Lynch was messed around by Leeds before he signed for Cas so not sure he'd want to come.

Would be a good signing though.

: Tue Mar 31, 2009 4:51 pm  

didn't know that. could test the water though

: Tue Mar 31, 2009 4:52 pm  

Dirty Pretty Thing wrote:

If I'm not wrong at this time last year hadn't Burgess yet to make his debut? This means we were essentially going into the season with 4 props and relying on a youngster if needed.

But what if you are?

At this point last season Burgess had played three games as part of a bona-fide five prop rotation. In any case even if he hadn't he had already graded at SL level with Harlequins in 2007 as Tony Smith failed to blood him at Headingley (a Smith failing, IMO, as I've mentioned on here previously.)

: Tue Mar 31, 2009 4:52 pm  

tad rhino wrote:

andy lynch is OOC at the seasons end. a little cheeky bid might be fruitful methinks. a little cash for the bulls for a player who will leave for free at the end of the season and a good signing for leeds.

With Bailey, Leuluai, Peacock and Burgess currently under contract and Eastwood expected for 2010 I can't see Lynch being a signing unless one of the first four leave. GH's priority will be whether he keeps those four before signing anyone else (subject to the Leuluai to Wigan rumours).

The Saints cup game may be important in the thinking. Defeat may mean that players get the necessary rest and no requirement meaning that the cap can be held for covering a longer term injury in any position. Victory may mean that there's plenty in the coffers going forward to recruit now.

I also think that there may be a worry about Rob Burrow's longer term fitness after two bouts of concussion and they may feel they need to keep an eye on his situation.

: Tue Mar 31, 2009 5:06 pm  

finglas wrote:

With Bailey, Leuluai, Peacock and Burgess currently under contract and Eastwood expected for 2010 I can't see Lynch being a signing unless one of the first four leave.

That's a wait and see situation though. Hasn't Eastwood signed on for three years at Canterbury with an option for 2010?

Having an option doesn't neccessarily mean he will exercise it in Leeds' favour.

We could be left holding out for a player who cannot (Visa) or decides against (enjoying himself at the Bulldogs) making the move. Can Leeds afford to take that chance when it's impairing their ability to replace him in 2009 and possibly beyond?

finglas wrote:

Defeat may mean that players get the necessary rest and no requirement meaning that the cap can be held for covering a longer term injury in any position. Victory may mean that there's plenty in the coffers going forward to recruit now.

GH and McClennan identified an area that needed strengthening, hence the signing of Eastwood. What has happened since to change their considered plan for 2009?

A 1 to 17 containing Hall and the perceived wisdom that Hetherington always leaves this 'wriggle room' suggests that money was available even after the Eastwood signing.

I generally agree with the policy of having a little spare but just how much under the cap can a team go before it potentially hinders their chances of defending their titles? It's one down already on that score.