Negotiations in progress, no point in saying anything now that might cost us some more money.

Read the post again and you will see.

But I take it that although you dont want to sign overseas players, you have no problem if they are already here?

How would say bringing someone like Tate in now whilst Watkins is fully ready, be any worse than not resigning a gited britsh player for various positions but resigning Donald who can only play wing?

He's two years older than when we signed him, my guess we would be we don't want to pay him anymore than we are now. Maybe even less in fact.

In other words our esteemed chairman will have offered them both deals. Those deals will be in line with our structure. If they don;t accept those deals and choose to move on they are free to do so.

There are not many players in this squad, if any, that we should break the structure for. If McGuire, Burrow and Sinfield can play within it should be good enough for Lee Smith. If it isn't, good luck Lee and I hope the move works out better for you than it did Chev.

Same for Kylie. I can understand why he'd want to cash in and if he does, good luck to him. He'd actually be much harder to replace than Lee Smith, IMO.

I've eluded to his age, but to be fair, I don't think Kylie's age matters much. I bet he's doing a similar job now then he was doing 5 or 10 years ago. He plays in short, sharp, spells. So he could play to the same level (barring injuries) for quite a few years yet. His performances haven't declined and he isn't dropping off. He's a right goer.

Again where am i been a hypocite??
We HAVE young british players to replace the departing british player if that occurs.
Broughton.
Ben jones bishop
Watkins
Gibson
Hall.
The fact we have overseas players here already is nothing to do with it nor does it equate to signing an overseas player to cover the loss of a british one.

Would you prefer to resign a overseas player who can play only one position (wing) at the expense of losing a gifted British player who can play various positions?

Replacing Chairman with CEO, that would be my interpretation also.

That doesn't come into it if we can't match the wasps offer and smith decides he's off!!
If it came as a straight choice to keep either donald or smith then i'd keep smith IF it fits within the curent wage structure.
That is all hypothetical though because each case is dealt with differently by GH.

Thats always been the case with GH.I get the impression he offers a figure and its not up for negotiation.

TBH can't knock him for it thsi club was on it's knees when he and caddick came in and they've turned it around.
Too many people don't know or choose to ignore the state we were in and if tight control of the wage structure plays it's part in our overall strenght as a club then long may it continue.

Its far from hypothetical. Both are coming up for renewal of contract, or at least one was renewed recently and the other not.

One is higher paid than the other one at present. Yet the other one is far more important to the team.

Nothing hypothetical about that. It should be a no brainer.

I agree however, on keeping within our wage structure. So long as that wage structure is indeed fair.

Just signed a mega-money (by Aussie standards) deal with Brisbane pal, he aint going anywhere.

I reckon Burgess is the most likely to sign out of those three.

Each case is different because they are assessed on many things i.e age,experience,international call ups,importance to the squad,coaches opinion.etc.
If 1 is higher paid at present then that scenario must of been warranted as for the new deal negotiations i'm sure the structure in place will cover ALL scenario's and outcomes.

Smith is now a current full International and will be deserving of moving up a bracket or several from his previous contract signed June 2005, almost four years ago.

Without knowing all the grades within the much alluded to unbreakable pay structure wouldn't Smith be looking at around the mark attained by the other current Internationals? and perhaps there is only room for so many of those within the squad at Leeds with the likes of Sinfield, McGuire, Burrow, Peacock and JJB sorted and Smith, Senior yet to commit.

No argument with one paid higher at present. One was a regular in the NRL with a good try scoring record, the other was in and out of the side and already on a long term contract at lower money (why change it).

But now it is enitrely relevant. And in this particular case, one is an International and the other is not.

Totally agree and would be a shame to lose him especially to union but i trust GH 100% and i believe we have plenty of young,hungry and good enough homegrown players to come into the squad should smith leave.

I think if he's to stay he wouldn't be a top earner anymore and i'd say it'd be more appearance related.
I know what yer saying though re- the golden core!

Just thinking of our current internationals (off the top of my head) and whether their contracts were up this year or not.

I almost threw Diskin in there too but he isn't a current International although deserves to be.

He was when his contract was signed, wasn't he?

Could do with that current contract thread being brought up!

Signed his current contract March 2006. I don't think he'd played Internationally since he did his knee at the KC Stadium at the end of 2004 playing for GB (on debut?). He was an International but not a current one not least because of his injury.

To Kylie & Lee

Please fell free to hold out for as much as you can, and if you have to leave, then I'm sure your career will improve.

regards

Chev Walker, Mark Calderwood, Chris Feather, Nick Scruton etc

[url=http://viewtopic.php?t=391364&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0Here you go[/url