Re: Jay Pitts denied a loan : Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:04 am  

tvoc wrote:

Hasn't Gotcha clarified his earlier statements when he said on page 5:

Not really. That doesn't clarify what promises were made at all. Coach Mclennan said he saw his as "more of" a prop than a 2nd rower in a press rel;ease when we signed him. Do you think that amounts to a promise?

DO you think Gotcha was trying to clarify or wriggle out of an earlier statement?

The language may have been inprecise but the basic point appeared to be an apparent intention to develope Pitts in to the prop position as outlined by the then head coach which has for whatever reason not exactly born much fruit.

I'd say it was more of an observation than an intention.

If you care to answer the questions Gotcha posed in that post above you'll see that on the face of it he may have a point.

No he wouldn't because I see nothing that says the lad was promised he would be picked for any team, whether 1sts or otherwise at any position.

I entirely agree that the general promise statement was and remains unsubstantiated but as it's effectively been withdrawn we should be able to move on.

Where has it been withdrawn? I think it's been shown to be without substance but I can't see it's been withdrawn. Feel free to move on if you wish.

You asked for evidence of 'a prop comment' (I suspect that was because you couldn't recall one and hoped it hadn't actually happened) but Gotcha was right in that it had. No-one's still banging on about it now - excluding this part of the post.

Where did I ask for evidence of a "prop" comment? I asked for evidence about promises.

Re: Jay Pitts denied a loan : Sun Feb 19, 2012 10:22 am  

This is like Haye v Chisora, only with longer words and less spit.

Re: Jay Pitts denied a loan : Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:58 pm  

And one less tripod.

Re: Jay Pitts denied a loan : Sun Feb 19, 2012 8:04 pm  

TVOC just tell G1 he's right...it's obviously important to him. We can all draw our own conclusions as to who is worth respecting

Re: Jay Pitts denied a loan : Sun Feb 19, 2012 8:56 pm  

prop or second row, the lads simply not good enough

Re: Jay Pitts denied a loan : Mon Feb 20, 2012 12:55 pm  

G1 wrote:

Where did I ask for evidence of a "prop" comment? I asked for evidence about promises.

You weren't looking for evidence of a prop comment when you said this:

G1 wrote:

It took me 2 seconds and a google search to find Pitts quotes from when we signed him. Nothing about promises, nothing about playing prop.

Add that to when you asked

G1 wrote:

How did the club say he would be developed and when did they say this?

Again that question infers no comment was made with regards to converting the then young Wakefield back-row prospect into a front-row forward.

Evidence was provided of the intention/observation via the YEP article I provided in full - not wishing to prejudice either argument.

__________

This debate appears (to me at least) to centre on someone reading and remembering an individual comment made by coach McClennan when Pitts was initially signed in '09 and someone who missed it.

If it's any consolation, I didn't remember the comment either until I checked the piece.

Re: Jay Pitts denied a loan : Mon Feb 20, 2012 1:01 pm  

Thanks for the clarification tvoc, but I would give up.

Gareth has obviously convinced himself that he was arguing on something else now, when he brought this up.

G1 wrote:

No he wouldn't because I see nothing that says the lad was promised he would be picked for any team, whether 1sts or otherwise at any position.

Not that anybody said such a thing, and the only issue was about whether the lads agreed development at signing stage was actually kept to, but it keeps Gareth happy anyway.

Re: Jay Pitts denied a loan : Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:43 pm  

tvoc wrote:

You weren't looking for evidence of a prop comment when you said this:

Add that to when you asked

Again that question infers no comment was made with regards to converting the then young Wakefield back-row prospect into a front-row forward.

Evidence was provided of the intention/observation via the YEP article I provided in full - not wishing to prejudice either argument.

I was looking for evidence of any promises. I still am. Nobody has provided any.

This debate appears (to me at least) to centre on someone reading and remembering an individual comment made by coach McClennan when Pitts was initially signed in '09 and someone who missed it.

By all means fight Gotcha's battles for him but you don't have to adopt his fog knitting style. The "debate" as far as I am concerned is that Gotcha claimed the lad Pitts was made promises. I still see no evidence of that.

If it's any consolation, I didn't remember the comment either until I checked the piece.

I remembered the comments. I didn't and still don't remember any promises. Do you?

Re: Jay Pitts denied a loan : Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:44 pm  

I think Pitts and Ambler might get a chance now with JJB injured for a few months

Re: Jay Pitts denied a loan : Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:06 pm  

G1 wrote:

I was looking for evidence of any promises. I still am. Nobody has provided any.

By all means fight Gotcha's battles for him but you don't have to adopt his fog knitting style. The "debate" as far as I am concerned is that Gotcha claimed the lad Pitts was made promises. I still see no evidence of that.

I remembered the comments. I didn't and still don't remember any promises. Do you?

Why do things have to get so fickle and petty with you? I was prepared to just forget as it's not important, but you seem to want to bang on till someone says your right.

Look at the previous page that you completely ignored, and instead chose to change things that you believe was said. Yet throughout all pages nothing has been said to match what you are trying to go on about.

Let's see your answers to these questions.

Did McClennan state on Pitts signing that they saw him as a prop?
As this was a change of role for Pitts would this not have been agreed upon with the player before he signed?
As there was an agreement made with the player on this, you can call it what you want, a guarantee, a promise, and undertaking, a stipulation, a word of honour, an assurance, etc, but no player is going to go into it without some form of the above.

With the above in mind answer properly, have the club played Pitts as a prop? as he developed any differently to the player we signed three years ago?

The answers no. And that is all this petty argument was about. Never a critisim of the club, never a critisism of the player, never a critisism of the present coach, just a pointing out of circumstances, and a reason for why the player may well want to go out on loan to prove himself elsewhere.

Really, what is the issue?