Just shows you that reputation sometimes counts for absolute bog-all sometimes with that lad. What a waste of a salary cap and quota spot.

Gleeson and King are Warringtons biggest earners, and they want rid quick!! Briers is also on a good wedge but nobody wants him except NL 1 clubs and they could'nt afford him!!

Isn't Gleeson OoC at the end of the season?

If he goes to Wigan he will win bugger all, he's the kind of player that (if he fits into our cap structure) would be a good addition. It would also solve the problem of replacing Keith as our "Senior" (no pun intended) centre next year, leaving Gibson and Watkins to play for the other centre spot.

Of course this assumes that we don't need to save our coppers for a new stand etc....

If he's available, quality centres like Gleeson don't become available every day. He'll probably end up at an ambitious club like Huddersfield or Hull then.

Jackie

Holla.

More on the wigan rumour! www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... ngton.html

More on the wigan rumour! www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... ngton.html

Quote ="rhinoms"More on the wigan rumour! www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... ngton.html'" If Mathers signs for Warrington then I think we can put to bed another probably boll*cks rumour that the main reason he left Leeds was to get away from Smith.

Quote ="rhinoms"More on the wigan rumour! www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... ngton.html'" If Mathers signs for Warrington then I think we can put to bed another probably boll*cks rumour that the main reason he left Leeds was to get away from Smith.

Why the LOL?

I know its' been some time since you attended Headingley but if you haven't noticed we do need a new stand.

We could really do with a specialist right centre IMO, maybe not for this season but after Keith goes. I see Watkins as a left centre personally, despite him showing flashes of brilliance on the right.

Gleeson is the sort of player that we should be interested in. Quality player with 2-3 seasons of top class rugby left in him - he's out of contract at the end of the year so a transfer fee should be reasonable money.
Would give us some balance on the right and could be dynamite with Scott Donald outside him. Ablett could then concentrate on back row duties where he looks excellent this year.

Wigan will offer him a lot more money. I'd imagine he'd have to take a significant salary cut to come to Leeds. It wont happen.

Worth a Punt in my opinion. Quality Centre, Few good years left whilst we blood Watkins and Gibson develops. Would be good if we're able to get him. I think we would be able to offer similar money as Wigan to be honest. I would think they'd have some money free from Barretts contact, the fact they have a good few youngsters in there team (Who will be on less money) Only new recruit who will be up top in terms of salary that I can think of is that plumper Riddell. What I wouldn't want to happen is for us to pay silly money. Front loadinga contract might be a way to go with this one.

Does it look like Wigan need to unload Mathers and Goulding's salaries this season for Gleeson to fit within the cap?

To be honest, while not generally a fan of signing for signing's sake, if players of Gleeson's quality become available, if the price is right we should definitely be interested.

If we're going to sign a player and if we think right cenrte is an area of need then he is the calibre of player we should sign.

However, with his reupted salary at Warrington I think the chances are slim.

Gleeson must be doing something radically wrong if Smith is prepared to offload him to a rival club. After all he's a British test centre and not exactly over the hill.

While the Bulls are short of a decent centre (or two!) I'd be concerned if we were in the running for him as it may be the reason for him leaving Warrington is a reason not to sign him.

I wondered about this....Im not sure the both of them will be on Big contracts, but it would seem that Yes Wigan would need to unload them. It could also be that they want rid of Mathers and are trying to broker a way of getting rid and maybe just saving themselves of a transfer fee. I know they want Gleeson but are reluctant to lose Goulding so this may also suggest they have room to play with...?

This maybe a stupid question regarding Fieldens £400'000 odd move but transfer fees arent affected by the salary cap at all are they. Teams are free to pay whatever they want in terms of transfer fees???

The rumours (I know, I know) are simply about the size of the salary preventing Smith boosting the squad elsewhere.

Correct. Any transfer fee paid to another club has no impact on the buyer's salary cap.

The odd part of the system was IIRC the receiving team can't include the fee received as income when assessing the old 50% of turnover deciding the level of spend allowed under the cap. As that system has been replaced by a maximum flat cap it's all irrelevant now anyway.

That was going to be my next question! So thankyou. I suppose its sensible for Warrington to therefore try and exchange Gleeson for two players rather than a cash sum. There not the most cash strapped club after all. If the rumours are true that Gleesons wage is ridiculously high, getting rid and two new players seems a good bit of Business from Mr Smith.

Of course they are

I reckon, based on what my friends at Warrington have said, Gleeson would have to be willing to take a circa £50k pay cut to come to Leeds.

Wigan will break the cap for him, they already have "form".

Tvoc, is Senior OoC at the end of this year? Whilst I'd be happy to see Keith play on for Leeds, there is no doubt that Gleeson would make a good signing if he would fit into our pay structure.

If that's true all credit to him similar to what Ellis did when he first joined, would love to get him but really can't see it.

At the moment, Yes.

As for Wigan breaking the cap they simply wouldn't be allowed to register Gleeson's playing contract unless there was room or they'd made room to do so through legitimate channels.

Since the cap went 'Live' in 2008(?) there have been no reported issues and the system should more or less prevent any breach, either deliberate or accidental from occuring.