I have to say I can't disagree with any of that.

The southstand development is going ahead with gritted teeth and in ten years time they'll probably look back and think, "If only...", its also clearly going to affect income and its fairly obvious to most that the budgets have already been adjusted to suit this.

I have no doubt at all that the development is well planned and will be properly financed and managed and we can have all faith in the company management to see it through - we won't end up with a stack of portakabins that are never paid for that almost bring the business to failure (unlike some local teams) just because the money wasn't in place before the order was placed, nor will we have to sell our ground to pay debts and then beg our council to build us a stadium on the pretext that it will be a "social asset".

But the good times are behind us for a while and its a case of grinding out some average seasons (by comparison) for a while yet.

The scenario being illustrated by McF is comforting in one sense, in that the long term stability of the club, in an off the field sense, will be secure, which in these difficult economic times is no bad thing when we compare against some other clubs. And as he says, funds will probably have to be distributed elsewhere for a few years to fund things, but what better incentive now to enter a period of rebuilding on the field, and invest in our own young talent rather than feeling the need to spend up to the salary cap on aussie misfits, and ageing has beens from other clubs.
There are currently a whole crop of talented young players playing at various age groups in our Academy sides, and it is in these young fellas that the club should be putting it's faith over the next few years, as we attempt to rebuild the next era of success at the club. That's where many of our current crop of GF winners started out, and now the time has come to start the process again, and although it may not be what some of our demanding supporters want to hear, it is a realistic prospect for the next couple of years or so.

The Tykes have, and always will be Caddicks play thing. They have tried absolutely everything to make them work in Leeds, including unique and innovative strategies, but they are, and always will be, flogging a dead horse. They do not affect the Rhinos on field operations.

All the Rhinos need to do is break even each year, the falling attendances and season ticket sales that concern you so much are still much larger that the vast majority of the competition. The TV revenue that forms such a large portion of income has actually gone up, and is guaranteed for 5 years, and more will be due to the clubs when cup and international rights are sold separately. Leeds remain in an incredibly strong position in a small and salary capped league.

Of course the stand will be well planned and financed, so was building the previous one, so was repaying the vast debt, so were the dealings with the cricket side, so were the Harris legals etc. etc. The track record of this board is very relevant to how they will ride out the economic situation and capital investment in the ground. However I struggle with the suggestion that they have sat down at board level and deliberately planned to weaken the on field product to achieve that.

Now, the trouble with how you look at the squad is that you have made all the numbers up, haven't you? Probably, like me, you haven't seen any of those contracts, so you don't know who has had pay rises, pay cuts, settlements and the like? You may be correct with who is leaving, but everyone agrees that the squad is in a transition phase, there will have to be changes, but you are using these changes to support your cost cutting theory. 2+2=5?

Are you suggesting that Leeds will only spend 70% of the cap next season? Do you really think there are no overseas players to sign (again whether we should given the recent return on the Australian outlay is another matter)? Do you honestly not think that amongst all the other expenditure incurred by the Rhinos, all the non playing staff and projects, they are not able to run a tight ship elsewhere?

And why on earth did they sanction paying a transfer fee into the Crusaders black hole less than a year ago to secure Hauraki if cutting playing costs was the priority?

Either the chief architect of the new South Stand is an astonishingly brilliant actor or his despair about what the council kept rejecting when Leeds suggested it regarding the new development is real. The Carnegie Stand is cited as a, literally, big reason they won't permit another development of that scale again.

You say "where is the cost cutting going to come from if not the playing squad?" Leeds spend about £5m in total on wages, salaries, NIC and pensions. In the past three years they've paid £760k in inter-group management charges, including £400k to Leeds RUFC. Given the likely correlation between cap spend, performance on the field and medium term revenues (and the latter is not 'merely' a simple consideration of a couple of thousand less in the ground for the 6m of next season when the stand is being redeveloped - if that happens), the playing squad is pretty much the last place they are likely to go looking - and that even allows for your view which does not at all chime with mine that the board see Leeds CF&A only as a company to be run to make or not lose money every single season rather than there being both a longer-term view and a totally genuine commitment from the very top to winning things.