Its a cultural thing - so as a senior player I would anticipate he has his say - he hasn't come out like the captain and said it was time for a change like he did with Powell, Smith and McClennan - you read into that what you will?

Are you sure that this was McD's doing?

It has all the hallmarks of GH management and I doubt McD could have forced GH's hand on contract matters.

What do Hardaker and Clarkson have to do with contract matters? I understand the point on Burgess, but I suspet G1 was suggesting that he should have played as a result of the lack of form of the other props rather than any discussions with GH about next year...

You're sugggesting it was GHs decision to drop Hardaker. You're suggesting GH told McDermott to not only accept this decision but to tell the press it was his own decision. You're suggesting GH told McDermott to tell the press his rationale for dropping him was to give the lad (a 19 year old winger) a rest after 7 games.

All of the above is possible. Of course, it's also possible McDermott is eccentric and way out of his depth. having seen his interviews (even going back to his Quins days) my view is it's the latter.

Would you take a 50+ hammering against Wigan on Friday if it meant BMD would be sacked the next day?

Not really. It's possible we won't have much choice though. In fact, we might well get the 50 point hammering without the sacking....

One will happen

In this world of such definitive cihoices I would take a 50 point hammering on friday for an extra two inches on my wee man.

That's a lot of players to be replaced in one season,If Buderus goes back then out of the above it will be Ali and Senior shown the door.

I've always suspected that if there was an actual working procedure to increase the little fella as required ( as simple as women having breast enlargement) then women would walk the World in fear, because every bloke on the planet would immediately get the maximum size possible.

I just want a couple of extra inches. 10 sounds a much rounder number than eight.

Hi G1, that tape measure I brought to training last week was metric, it was 8cm not inches, HTH

I thought you took a long time down there whilst measuring it. You just said you were being thorough. Was here any need to put it in your mouth though?

Yes, I had something stuck between my teeth

No I was talking about contracts with regard to Burgess and Cross which IMO is to do with money/salarycap/recruitment and so is GH and not McD. If you recall there was also talk of not playing Clarkson and Pitts because of a bonus payment in the contract. If this is true then again down to GH and not McD

Clarkson played on Friday, debunking any story about him not playing due to a bonus which would have taken us over the cap, unless you think that both Burgess and Cross let for less than the rest of this year's salary of course.

We all think they should have been played and I would have been playing Cross ahead of Kirke or Kylie. There were rumours of Clarkson & Pitts not being selected because it avoided a bonus payment. If this is true that would be GH's decision and not McD's. The handling of Burgess & Cross was very bad management and must be down to GH and could explain why they were not being selected. GH has always wanted to do the recruitment and likes his expenses paid trips down under. I suspect GH does not like a strong coach and wants to pull the strings himself.

We don't know the details of the contracts which could include game bonuses for some and flat rate for others. These bonuses may be being saved up for a new recruit.

Last Friday was Clarkson's 34th Appearance for Leeds. Doesn't strike me as an obvious bonus trigger point type number.

What money became available under this year's cap depends on how much it cost Burgess to get out of his contract.

Apart from the likes of Wayne Bennett, I suspect coaches don;t come much 'stronger' than Tony Smith or Graham Murray before him. There's no evidence GH can't work with a strong coach.

There is some evidence that overseas recruitment has been odd for some years now - some big names mixed with absolute cr*p. That does seem to be an area for which GH takes most of the responsibility, and I'd suggest the results speak for themselves - you could almost draw a direct correlation between the quality of the player in the NRL and their performances for Leeds. Funny that.

Would agree it does strike me that GH does like to be the main man in term of recruitment,

Only suspect ?

In fairness it's not like he isn't qualified to do so is it?

Perhaps, I did consider including it in the post, however it'd be too easy for a coach to just continue picking a player on the bench to avoid triggering the payment if that was the case with no particular detriment to the team.

For example Nick Scruton made 77 Appearances for Leeds in all but only 16 of those were in the run-on side and it took him 35 of those Appearances to make his full debut.