No, it's important to me to try and raise the level of fekkwittism on here so others can understand rugby a little better than they do.

When people post unsubstantiated rubbish and try and base a whole discussion around it I like to show those people for what they are. You're free to post what you want but if you just make stuff up you will have zero cerdibility. It took me 2 seconds and a google search to find Pitts quotes from when we signed him. Nothing about promises, nothing about playing prop.

So carry on posting the garbage you've been posting since you registered but try and remember that if you post falsehoods someone with higher standards and better credibility is always keeping an eye on you.

You tell me. Nothing in the reports I linked to above from his signing say that he was signed to exclusively play a particular position.
I'm not looking for anything other than for you to subtantiate your claims that the club made him promises that have been broken. Can you do that?

How did the club say he would be developed and when did they say this?

Methinks you take life too seriously

....the common denominator in winning GF's is the playing staff.

The common denominator in all your ridiculous posts, is you.

I too never thought he would make a prop and I remember clearly posting it on the thread when he signed. He's a ball playing backrowers/loose.

Delaney playing backrower is not good development from the club, it was poor recruitment in the first place.

Article reproduced in full from the YEP on the day the signing was announced ..... enjoy. It's a long winded piece so I've highlighted in blue what appears to be a potentially relevant point in the context of the discussion thus far.

There is also one highlighted in red from Pitts that shows hindsight can be a wonderful thing.

(And no-one should worry about the effort involved on my part as it only took a couple of minutes to find a date for the signing, go to the article and copy and paste it here.)


[size=150Headingley Pitts stop is dream come true for Wildcat Jay
14th July 2009 [/size


Former season ticket holder Jay Pitts today described signing for Leeds Rhinos as an “unbelievable” opportunity. Rhinos will pay Wakefield Trinity Wildcats an undisclosed fee for the 19-year-old forward, who has joined them on a three-and-a-half year deal. A former England Academy international, Pitts made his Super League debut last season and has played 22 first-team games for Wakefield, including 14 this season. “I supported Leeds from a young age and I was a season ticket holder, so it’s a great honour,” said Pitts, who admitted his “jaw dropped” when he first heard of the Rhinos’ interest. “I was watching Leeds six or seven years ago and now I’ll be playing with some of the same people. It is unbelievable. It is what I have always wanted to do. It is the pinnacle of my career so far and I don’t think there’s much more that can beat that, because it is a childhood dream that has been accomplished.” Pitts played for Wildcats reserves in their 34-16 loss to Leeds three days ago. He said: “It is a wrench to leave. Wakefield have helped me so much and they’ve done so much for me. But I think it’s one of those things I have to do to better my own game. I want the best for myself, but I can’t stress enough how good Wakefield have been to me. Opportunities like this don’t happen very often. =#FF0000If I didn’t take it, in a couple of years’ time I would be regretting it. It is one of those opportunities you’ve got to take. I will work my hardest and hopefully it will come good for me.
Pitts – who can play in the front or back row – added: “I’d love to play some Super League games for Leeds this season, but I need to work my way up first and get the respect of the players. That’s number one, then we’ll go from there.” Coach Brian McClennan said Pitts’ signing has been made “with a view to the future”. Said McClennan: “He has played some first grade already and he is young enough that he can play in our system next year for the under-20s. It is important we have that, if he doesn’t make our first grade side he can develop in our system.” The Leeds coach added: “=#0000BFWe will have to work with him to build him up, we see him as a young prop coming through, more than a back-rower. He has got good, late footwork and we will work on him defensively. He has got an idea, he has got a bit of whack in him, and he will work with our coaching staff and we’ll help him get better at that.” Of Pitts’ chances of breaking into the senior side this year, McClennan said: “It’s up to him. He has to earn the respect of his team-mates, that’s the priority. There’s a pretty high caliber of player here and they are hard to impress. He has got to work hard, which he is prepared to do. He has got a good nature and very good character references, so he will fit in.” The Wildcats gave the Rhinos permission to approach Pitts, whose contract was due to end this autumn. Leeds chief executive Gary Hetherington confirmed the transfer was a straight cash deal, with no other player involved. Pitts’ arrival comes less than a week after the Rhinos signed young prop Kyle Amor, from Whitehaven. Hetherington said: “Bringing in quality young players will boost our squad. There’s no doubt we have been running light, particularly with our forward options this year.” Wildcats coach John Kear said: “Leeds inquired about Jay, we are open and honest with our players and we made him aware of that interest and he said he would like to listen to what they had to say. Leeds agreed terms with him, they agreed terms with us and subsequently, he has gone. I’d like to thank Jay for what he has done, he has developed immensely in the time he has been a full-time player and I feel he has got a great future in front of him. Leeds have got a very good player.” Kear said the deal had been done “amicably”. He added: “He has been very honest with us, Leeds Rhinos have as well and we feel we’ve been honest with the player concerned. It has been conducted as professional people should conduct such a move.”

I've highlighted in pink the parts that demonstrate that everyone was aware he'd have a job to do to "make it" and no promises were made.

Thanks tvoc, that was all that was needed, much appreciated. I wasn't going to make an issue of it, as I think I have been picked up incorrectly on what was said, but at least that backs up what my view was.

Could you please highlight, in any colour of your choosing, the promises that were made, and broken to young Pitts upon his signing?

TIA.

Gareth I am not getting involved in squabbles. Tvoc has highlighted the important bit for me, where McClennan stated they were to develop him with a view to seeing him as a prop. That hasn't happened. Correctly in my view.

Not once have I criticised the club with regards this, which you appear to be assuming I have. I have pointed out the circumstances of what McLennan said and did. Then pointed out the change of coach, who may well have a differen view to the last.

My only criticism was to posters saying Pitts was having a strop, which was I felt was silly, then looked at things from his point of view.

You specifically said the club had made him promises. I still don't see any. I'm just curious what those promises were, that's all.

Seriously Gareth? You don't think that a coach announcing something to the media of how he was going to develop a player, that he wouldn't have already discussed that with him before signing?

You don't think that as that new development was a different role from the player that they hadn't agreed on this before hand? There verbal agreement made, in other words promise.

As Jay Pitts become a prop? Has Jay Pitts played prop? Has Jay Pitts developed any differently to the day he signed? The answer to all is no. Therefore things have not happened as agreed on signing.

has he developed in bulk enough to be developed as a prop.

clarkson took his chance as a back rower, pitts hasn't

Sorry, I haven't read the articles in your links and am happy to accept that playing prop wasn't mentioned by anyone quoted in them but it was mentioned in the YEP article by coach McClennan, hence my intended to be helpful intervention.

Assuming Gotcha's proposition centres on Pitts being seen as and developed as a prop at Leeds it appears he has some ground to base that on.



You're not wrong and that remains the case.

McLennan says in your link that he sees Pitts as more of a prop than a 2nd rower. All the articles talk abiut him earning a 1st team place. I still fail to see what promises were made that have been broken. As the brain trust of gotcha and exhale can't expand upn the proposition perhaps you can explain how mclennan"s comments amount to a promise from the club.

Sorry but are you now using semantics in a discussion with Gotcha and Nantwich?

I'm trying to be specific. In case you haven't read back, on page 2 Gotcha said "I am blaming the promises made to the lad".

On page 4 I asked

"Gotcha, specifically who made what promises to Pitts and how are you privvy to those promises?"

If you could direct me to where that has been answered, either by Gotcha or by the quote from the YEP you've provided, I would be grateful. A comment that the then coach saw him as more of a prop than a 2nd rower, hardly amounts to a promise, would you agree?

Hasn't Gotcha clarified his earlier statements when he said on page 5:



The language may have been inprecise but the basic point appeared to be an apparent intention to develope Pitts in to the prop position as outlined by the then head coach which has for whatever reason not exactly born much fruit.

If you care to answer the questions Gotcha posed in that post above you'll see that on the face of it he may have a point.

I entirely agree that the general promise statement was and remains unsubstantiated but as it's effectively been withdrawn we should be able to move on.

You asked for evidence of 'a prop comment' (I suspect that was because you couldn't recall one and hoped it hadn't actually happened) but Gotcha was right in that it had. No-one's still banging on about it now - excluding this part of the post.

Not really. That doesn't clarify what promises were made at all. Coach Mclennan said he saw his as "more of" a prop than a 2nd rower in a press rel;ease when we signed him. Do you think that amounts to a promise?

DO you think Gotcha was trying to clarify or wriggle out of an earlier statement?

I'd say it was more of an observation than an intention.

No he wouldn't because I see nothing that says the lad was promised he would be picked for any team, whether 1sts or otherwise at any position.

Where has it been withdrawn? I think it's been shown to be without substance but I can't see it's been withdrawn. Feel free to move on if you wish.

Where did I ask for evidence of a "prop" comment? I asked for evidence about promises.

This is like Haye v Chisora, only with longer words and less spit.

And one less tripod.

TVOC just tell G1 he's right...it's obviously important to him. We can all draw our own conclusions as to who is worth respecting