Someone should tell Jamie Jones Buchanan.

As for Worrall, he's squad depth but still played a significant role in a championship season which shows he can do a job.

I don't rate him but i am rarely too vociferous in such negative opinions as I felt even less about JJB up to 2004.

Kirke can prop when all the back rowers are fit.

Our squad has the following forwards (hookers excluded)

Props:
peacock
burgess
bailey
leuluai

second row:
JJB
Lauiti'iti
Kirke
Ablett
Worrall

After that there are acadamy lads who haven't stepped up, such as Ambler and Haley, who I'd expect to take up some of the work-load left by scrutons departure.

I think it looks a little thin, if our general match day squad is 4 props and 4 second rows, although that will change to 2 & 1 when Buderus is back, it doesn't leave us great for injuries of longer than 2 or 3 weeks.

But if we are lucky, and play things right the young lads can come in now when they are not critical and allow some of the senior players to have a rest, whilst getting them experience. When they are needed they can then then call upon some SL experience.

Haley's left for good, I'm lead to believe.

We have Chandler and Hardbottle who look a bit handier than Ambler.

This is the key.

All this arument that we are not short, is purely based on the scenario that most are fit. And indeed, in the unlikely event that we do not get injuries (which we are currently experiencing) then all is fine.

Your argument appears to be that Ablett can play centre, so we dont need anyone else there.

Now its Kirke can play prop if we have a shortage in that postion.

Well straight away you have taken away two of the backrowers, at the same time as Ali is constantly in the training room, and can not be relied upon to be fit.

You then mention about using two players that have not played first team super league, or even come close yet.

God help us if we lose Senior, JJB, Peacock for a few weeks at the same time (which in todays modern game could easily happen), because if we do the ones queriing the squad strength will certainly be proven correct. And the ones showing others taking the place will have their argument put in the bin.

And that looks a little worrying if you take our Worrall who's injured (and was "filler" last year really), Ablett who could have to play centre again in quite a few games, and Ali, who is now spending more time on the treatment table than on the pitch. Kirke is a big strong guy who does a good job in short spells, but only in short spells.
The only bonus is that we can have Diskin on with Buderus at the same time and Matt plays back row pretty well.

So that's JJB then who can play 70-80 minutes. Last year we had Ellis who could play the full 80 as well. If we lose JJB for any spell of time (like last year) it could cause us real problems. We rely on this guy firing every game too much for my liking. We lost him last year and form dipped and cost us the hubcap (which as we all have been told many, many times is the true way to decide who's the champion side..

).

Everyone at the club thought we needed another quality second row to replace Ellis, we tried to sign one, we should continue to try to sign one. A compromise would be a centre so that Ablett can concentrate on back row. I also think he's Sinny's understudy at 13, looks like he's developing into a very good player.

The argument is that Gibson and Watkins will play centre and therefore replace Toopi. This will allow Ablett to move into the forwards, thus replacing Ellis. Buderus will replace Scruton and we will run with a hooker within the substututes. Kirke will get more game time and will cover prop/second row.

If any team lost three players of the calibre of Senior, JJB and Peacock they would struggle.

Which full squad in SL is better equipped than ours?

This thread makes for a worrying read. If Peacock were to get a long term injury I don't think there is enough cover in the squad for us to defend the championship, especially as we can't count on Ellis and Scruton this year and Eastwood has failed to materialise. Thus far we've yet to see the benefit of bringing in another hooker - time will tell if Buderus was a good signing or not.

Even if we do manage to make do with the likes of Kirke filling in this season, we will need new prop forwards for 2010 with Peacock and Leuluai both being the wrong side of 30 (and the latter possibly going to Wigan). At present there do not seem to be any younger players on the verge of stepping up in the prop position, who would be natural or reliable candidates to succeed Peacock and Leuluai.

Add to that the need to replace Senior (assuming one of Watkins and Gibson plays on the right) and probably Smith (maybe Donald too) and GH is going to have to make a serious dip into the transfer market. Of course, it is possible that Gibson and Watkins can play their way into contention to take both centre positions which would be the preferred outcome, but we can't expect every youngster blooded to be an automatic success.

Marvelous. All we need now is the abolition of the salary cap and we can sign players to cover every position should our first choice players get injured.

Until that happens we'll need to carry on with players who can play a secondary position if needed.

Forrards do tu much exercisin nowadays. In my day we used ti train then go an trough double pie n peas washed down wi 7 pints o best bitter an drive 'ome. I cant even have a bluddy pint n drive nar.

Al tell thee summat now. All t injuries are cos theys no bluddy fat on the bodies. When a played mi belly hung donw ovver mi shorts an tother buggahs used to bounce off mi.

Only injury i ever got wor when Fred Paker bit mi bloody ear.

It wor a tough game in them days. non o this bloody poncy lycra.

None.

Look at Saints. Who have they turned to when players were injured? Wheeler, Lomax, Clough & Ashurst. How man of you had heard of those players before this season?

Saints and us continually demonstrate that reliance on youth players to cover injuries and squad depth is the way to go in order to comply with the salary cap and unearth new players.

Despite this, despite the success both clubs have been enjoying fans still question the wisdom of the approach.....

It's like those who seem to believe the Academy should be churning out another crop like 2001-02 every year, success makes you irrationally greedy.

They're the same people who come autumn time will be beating their chest about how appalling it is we don't produce any quality British players and how we're so far behind Australia and NZ.

Regarding the stadium plans being a constraint on Leeds being able to finance a full salary cap, is there any evidence of this being the case?

Even the Bulls have stated until recently that they have been spending upto a full salary cap, and they have much more widely publicised financial problems. For Leeds to cut back now on the verge of making a possible record third in a row championship would be non-sensical, especially as we are one of the most financially successful SL clubs. We would also be jeopardising the extra revenue that comes through having a successful trophy-winning team, which is something I doubt GH would want.

Those people are deluded.

That was one off. I think it's going to be a huge challenge to replace all those who came through, and are likely to retire, at the same time.

Not really but if the coach's deem them good enough and are willing to play them what's the problem??
I would of loved eastwood to come and scruton to stay but it didn't happen,but that doesn't mean we should panic and sign more player's without using our squad.
I understand what you and other's are saying but don't you think we should trust these youngster's???
As GH has already stated we have money available for the right player so i don't see the reason to panic.
A lot seems to rest on IF'S and BUT'S and any squad would struggle if it was deprived of 3/4 of it's quality player's for a sustained length of time but let's just see what happen's before declaring the world over and the demise of our great club and team.

I'd be surprised if the funding for major capital projects was coming out of operating income. A bigger issue for the stadium redevelopment is likely to be the unwillingness of financial institutions to lend money at anything like reasonable interest rates at the minute.

None.

However, earlier in the thread the posters craving new signings were talking about our ability to simply go out and get contracted players. They were talking about transfer fees.

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

However, there's no doubt the South Stand has to be re-built. That will have to be financed.

I'd also imagine our income will drop this year as will everyone else's.

Wit that in mind its' not unreasonable to say that depth for the squad must come from the junior ranks which has provided so well for us.

The quest for a 3rd championship is great but not at the expense of the financial stability of the club. We tried that in the 1990's.

Funny, I must have missed those two championships in the early 90s

But point taken.

Interesting that you and Gilder differ over whether expenditure on the salary cap should be affected by the stadium build.

I agree that it is good to have some wiggle room with the cap but if it means Leeds are 1-2 players short in positions in which youngsters aren't coming through then it is a concern. I suspect if Eastwood had come this season as planned he would have been spelled at prop given his size; perhaps if he does come next year it will be one less body in the pack to worry about.

Me too.

When were they?

It will have an impact, primarily because if money needs to be borrowed to fund redevelopment then the repayments on that loan will need to be factored into your running costs for the next however many years it will run for.

What you won't see however is running costs being reduced to save up money to redevelop the ground. With costs likely to run into seven figures you can't generate that kind of savings by reducing your running costs, it will have to come from capital investment either in the form of loans or grants.

The club had to contribute to the Carnegie Stand but the majority of funding came from Carnegie and Grants.

In the current climate the club, I would imagine, will have to pay a significantly higher amount (if not all) of cost of the Southstand.

If they club finance it through loans who will pay the loan repayments?

The club paid very little for the Carnegie. But the deal for that was done, in all probability, 3 years ago when times were very, very different.

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.

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?