This Burgess lad that formed part of this "5 prop rotation" last year, where did we sign him from?

I don't know.

Who did we sign prior to the 2008 season?

Who did we sign prior to the 2007 season?

Two of which were long term injuries, (Toopi and Gibson and I'm sure there was another in the WCC) That would explain the extra players last year.

I recognise if we get similar injuries we may be struggling this year but we may have to cross that bridge later.

Given that Eastwood is assumed to be coming in 2010 it's difficult to sign a replacement for the rest of the year. At present the management can identify who will not be renewing their contract in 2009 and identify replacements for them. In the meantime thaty have the flexibility to wait and see what position suffers a long term injury and arrange a replacement when they knowwho need replacing rather than sign a stopgap now and finding that they required the space to cover another position.

I think the more pertinent question would be "when did we sign him"...

No its' not. Its' Rugby League.

There's players contracts. There's a salary cap. There's a commitment to junior development. There are young players (and experienced ones) who will want new contracts.

Its' far from simple maths.

Well not for you and other Internet experts it isn't, but for GH its' a lot more than just simple maths.

My point was, if you look at things from just one angle (i.e. who we signed in those years) you're only going to ariive at one conclusion.

If you take into account who we let go at the same time then this would provide a more balanced conclusion.

3 is greater than 1.

Comprende?

Why?

The pertinent point i am making is that last year two young lads emerged as regular props as part of this alleged 5 man rotation, Burgess and Scruton.

BOTH came from within the club.

So, if a 5th prop is needed why the clamour to sign one from without? Who is to say we don't already have one ready to do a "Burgess"?

When we signed Burgess has naff all to do with that point.

So, do you have any answers?

And?

Can you name a prop from within who has the ability to do a "Burgess" this year? And don't even try and mention Ambler; he's way off at present.

Anyway, this trivial point you raise is deviating away from the whole point of the thread - we're short on forwards. We've lost Scruton and Ellis and we've not replaced them yet.

Can you name replacements for these two?

As mentioned several times Ablett and Buderus.
Ablett no longer needs to cover centre so he can now play in his natural position.
I'm sure Eastwood would have been included as well but [u[i"due to unforeseen circumstances"[/i[/u he won't be joining until 2010

..and therefore it is simple maths.

Are you ok today?

But he hasn't come has he.

If we'd signed Fuifui Moi Moi he'd be included. but we haven't have we.

So it would seem the obvious solution is to take a decent player in the Eastwood mould from Australia who may struggle for some reason to get a first team spot in Oz on loan for this season .
This may not happen for a few months until the teams in Oz bed down and sort themselves out.
Simple and everyone is happy.... I think.

Fine thanks. Just apeing your condescending, brief and pointless method of debate.

Stick to simple maths. Let those that aren't simple stick to assembling a Championship squad of Rugby players, like they have been doing.

I've no idea. I don't watch the Academy that closely. Then again, I couldn't have given you a more meaningful opinion on Burgess at the stage last year.

What was your opinion Burgess' abilities at the start of 2008? Did you post them anywhere?

How much of Ambler have you seen? What about our other Academy props? Are you saying none of them are up to any game time?

If I'm not wrong at this time last year hadn't Burgess yet to make his debut? This means we were essentially going into the season with 4 props and relying on a youngster if needed.

Everything apart from his Visa was in place for him to come. It was only a couple of weeks ago that the saga came to an end. Up until that point he was still a replacement forward.

Manipulating my quote by cutting the part that suits you does you no service at all and suggests that it is not worth debating with you in the first place. I will consider that as an error of judgement on your part on this occasion.

andy lynch is OOC at the seasons end. a little cheeky bid might be fruitful methinks. a little cash for the bulls for a player who will leave for free at the end of the season and a good signing for leeds.

Lynch was messed around by Leeds before he signed for Cas so not sure he'd want to come.

Would be a good signing though.

didn't know that. could test the water though

But what if you are?

At this point last season Burgess had played three games as part of a bona-fide five prop rotation. In any case even if he hadn't he had already graded at SL level with Harlequins in 2007 as Tony Smith failed to blood him at Headingley (a Smith failing, IMO, as I've mentioned on here previously.)

With Bailey, Leuluai, Peacock and Burgess currently under contract and Eastwood expected for 2010 I can't see Lynch being a signing unless one of the first four leave. GH's priority will be whether he keeps those four before signing anyone else (subject to the Leuluai to Wigan rumours).

The Saints cup game may be important in the thinking. Defeat may mean that players get the necessary rest and no requirement meaning that the cap can be held for covering a longer term injury in any position. Victory may mean that there's plenty in the coffers going forward to recruit now.

I also think that there may be a worry about Rob Burrow's longer term fitness after two bouts of concussion and they may feel they need to keep an eye on his situation.

That's a wait and see situation though. Hasn't Eastwood signed on for three years at Canterbury with an option for 2010?

Having an option doesn't neccessarily mean he will exercise it in Leeds' favour.

We could be left holding out for a player who cannot (Visa) or decides against (enjoying himself at the Bulldogs) making the move. Can Leeds afford to take that chance when it's impairing their ability to replace him in 2009 and possibly beyond?



GH and McClennan identified an area that needed strengthening, hence the signing of Eastwood. What has happened since to change their considered plan for 2009?

A 1 to 17 containing Hall and the perceived wisdom that Hetherington always leaves this 'wriggle room' suggests that money was available even after the Eastwood signing.

I generally agree with the policy of having a little spare but just how much under the cap can a team go before it potentially hinders their chances of defending their titles? It's one down already on that score.