I know for definite that Mossop had a medical at Kirkstall, I'm pretty sure that wigan would have been his first choice.

So did he not pass the medical and Wigan came in for him?

A reasonable stance in my opinion. GH hasn't got a bad track record in terms of who we do and don't bring in when you look at our trophy cabinet. We've passed on players in the past, Ellis when he returned from Aus being a notable example, who we would have liked to add to the squad. But when the bidding / salary requirements went past what we could justify with in our means and salary structures. Those financial structures have contributed to the building of a balanced cohesive team, that as I said haven't got a bad track record. Especially compared to the spend spend spend approach of other clubs.

He did turn up for a medical, true. We turned him down after seeing him struggle to push the door open.

Think you have misunderstood my comment, as others.

We have agreed terms with players on four seperate deals in the last year, Clarke twice, Brierley, and Westerman. Told the players the deal done. Yet have failed to do business with the respective clubs.

I am not saying going back on a deal to accomodate Burgess is necessarily wrong, although what happens if a Burgess deal doesn't go through. I am saying that it is not very professional to allow players to think otherwise, not when you proclaim yourself as a club with loyalty to players, and it doesn't matter who the player is.

To be fair our academy is doing fine. We finished well above you in the final standings.. we were graded as outstanding as were yourselves. We also have a former academy player playing in the nrl and also selected in the England squad. Not many can say that...

We have a host of academy prospects some have looked very good in a poor season for us. ..There is a fair list I could bore you with but as with all academy players some will make it at wire, some will go to lesser clubs, and others wil fall away.

The last time I checked the much praised Garbut Cuthbo and hardaker didn't come from Leeds academy. .? ? ? ?

Precisely, surely it makes more sense to agree the deal with the club first before then talking terms with the player. Complete waste of time/effort only to then find out said club will only do business for a certain transfer fee that you have no intention of paying

And all your players come from your academy, I didn't realise that

I might be wrong but by a quick count from memory, there at least 16 players in the squad from the academy, and plenty more plying their trade with other SL teams.

WTF are you on about? Your academy clearly hasn't produced a second rower/loose forward of the adequate standard or Wire wouldn't be in for Westerman.
In the same way as Leeds' didn't produce a prop so we had to sign one.

I'd imagine it's done that way so that Leeds can say to the other club that a deal is done with the player. Most clubs don't want players who'd rather play for another club and that can put pressure on the selling club to lower their transfer demands if the player is that keen to leave he's agreed a deal with another club.
It can also allow the player himself to put pressure on the selling club too.

It would seem to me to be the smart way to do it, as would not agreeing OTT transfer fees like £150k for Joe Westerman. Not only can that money be better spent but it also establishes a precedent as to what you'll pay for a certain standard of player and so inflates deals in the future.

Would a fee not need to be agreed in order to even discuss terms with a player? Surely without the selling club's permission this is tapping up no?

Don't give a #### about westerman, had good potential but never lived up to hype, good to average player at best. All Leeds need is a quality solid number 9 for next year, and other signings are luxury or projects not essential. Burgess or A Thurston,Cronk would be luxury marquee not westerman.

Agree with this RT. Westerman has rarely impressed me from what I have seen and our priorities are at halfback and hooker.
If on the other hand we got him for a reasonable fee say £50000 then I would be happy for him to join the squad.

Still not sure I would. Free transfer or player swap and modest 60-80k salary maybe. But there are better value players out there, and we propably have better prospects coming through.

More likely the Leeds club's agreed terms with those players who will have been under no illusion that a deal would then have to be struck with their current clubs. If those players then go spouting off saying they've signed for Leeds or go making plans before a deal's been struck then more fool them.

Have you spoken to them at all? I think probably not. I will stick with the point I made which I know about.

Let's not forget we also had Salford complaining about the same thing from Leeds, and unsettling a player.

The point is if you want loyalty and commitment, which Leeds have being excellent at over the years, then how are you going to instill that in a new breed when acting like that?

So you claim, you've made plenty of other claims on here too that have been total horlicks.
If Clark or any others [ihave[/i told you that Leeds have signed them before any deal's been confirmed between the club's then that person's an idiot and you're clearly not to be trusted by those people either.



Leeds win the treble, let's find something else to chelp about.....

Wasn't the Clark deal dependent on Warrington signing a new hooker? Something completely out of Leeds' control. Wasn't Clark communicating with his current club at the same time and knew their stance/position.

Obviously not because he told Gotcha it was a done deal.

No, your missing the key point yet again. LEEDS told the player it was a done deal. By that the player expects the club to complete it, not presume.

I am making the point, subject to it being correct about Westerman, that there have being four occurrences in the last year of Leeds doing this. Once, is perfectly understandable, but four times you would think somebody should learn from it and be a bit more professional.

There is no need to get all defensive on the club, it is not a complaint, it is a point.

I'm intrigued. Leeds were telling these players it was a done deal.

But what were Warrington telling Clark?
What were Leigh telling Brierly?
What was Hull telling Westerman?

Or are we to believe that these players (and their agents) solely listened to the 'buying' club and not once sought the stance of their current clubs? If so they deserve zero sympathy in that unlikely scenario.

Hull actually allowed Leeds to speak to Westerman, and Warrington allowed them to speak to Clarke.

Funny enough it is the losing out on Westerman which actually made us lose out on Clarke.

Clarke has lost his driving licence, and one of the major reasons in his desire to be back over here. Westerman is effectively to be his chauffeur at Warrington and a major reason on why they would pay the deal Hull wanted.

It still doesn't excuse the Leeds position of making assurances on players before coming to a deal with clubs, which is what I was pointing out. The quality of the player being irrelevant.

Westerman's still got his licence?

So it's Warrington who changed their minds on the Clark deal then and not Leeds. But it's Leeds you're criticising for it.

Also Wire not being able to find a replacement hooker is more likely than simply they couldn't find a chaffeuer for Clark until Joe Westerman (hardly the most reliable guy to entrust chaffeuer duties too) came along.

Ok.

Spending 100k+ on a player so he can be a taxi service for another player who has lost his license.

Seems legit.

I can give you 100% fact on the Mossop episode. I knew about 15 minutes after he did that his Parramatta contract had ended. Before he was even back in the UK Hetherington and McDermott had arranged a meeting with him. He didn't have a medical. It was just a meeting. Moose was very impressed by them both and was going to sign but when Wane heard of his availability and the fact he was going to sign for the Rhinos he made sure that he got him a better deal.