Mostly yes. As I repeat again, the signing of Buderus was planned to work with developing a long term successor to be identified. When that signing was made the identified young successor to learn was Hood. That is fact. Proof is in the pudding anyway.

Without seeing Hood at first team level, we don't know whether it will be a success, hence we are in agreement with your second statement.

Personally, I just don't have the same confident opinion on McShane.

Fair enough.

In that case, my statement stands - that you can't prove that Buderus has influenced Hood's development. It's still true, it just now appears a little spurious since you weren't saying you could....

Have I wriggled out of this yet?

I no for a fact that DB has been working with Hood from the begining it was 1 of the incentives for him to come to us that he would get 1 to 1 sessions with both Diskin and Buderus

Thank you. I also know that fact too. Just because some people can not accept it, does not mean it is not a fact.

I personally don't know for a fact that DB has been working with hood, having no personally experience in this. I wouldn't say as some have that no one on hear knows because they might have the contacts. Without any proof personally I don't think it is a particulary big stretch to think that DB has been working with hood and McShane on their game. As I think some have said you do make your own mistakes and find your own way, but working with a rugby league great like buderus is hardly going to hinder the lads, can only really be a positive. He might not have been at his AUS best but still would have a positive influence on the youngsters

As has been pointed out by El Diablo, a reasoned, unbiased poster, that is not what you put and what you put was far from clear and is different in this post to what you put in your original posts.

I have no issue with what you've put in any posts other than you're attempting to dress up thoughts, ideas and opinions as facts. You're quite sanctimonious with it as well when challenged. Given you carry very little credibility following the Phil Daly fiasco (and I don't bring it up to score cheap points but to illustrate nobody should ever take anything you put as fact at face value) I'd have thought you would be a little more circumspect.

You then dismiss my challenge by saying the Leeds article supported your supposed fact. I linked to it, quoted it and it doesn't.

You now change what you intended to really say to something somewhat different to what you actually said.

Classic Gotcha.

remember, I'm out here watching. Feel free to post your opinions but if you dress them up as facts i am going to challenge them and I will usually be successful.

And if, i repeat, if you're all correct and Buderus has been a master guru and anything Hood or McShane every achieve in their careers is because of his mere presence then I suppose that will partly make up for the complete lack of achievement on the part of the 1st team during his tenure as a player.

However, I suspect this is all just his acolytes laying the foundation to further their agenda by claiming credit for him after he's gone should a junior whose progression he has blocked go on to become a successful 1st teamer like the junior who was ousted by his signing.

Indeed. I specifically agree with the 1st sentence of the quote.

However, our shared opinion flies in the face of Gotcha's alleged FACTS.

What's the phil daly fiasco?

And this is exactly why I find you nothing more than a comedy poster on herw.

Nothing has changed on what I have said on this subject. Unlike you my views are consistent. this same fact I have spoken of has been the same for the last couple of years.

We all Know you are self righteous and stubborn, but just becasuse you think different, doesn't make you right.

Only because you clearly can't see the irony of your above post am I getting involved.

What people are challenging you about is how you dress opinion up as fact. It's nothing to do with whether people agree/disagree with you. For instance, I believe that all three senior hookers at the club (Buderus, Diskin and Lowes), including a few other people will have helped both McShane's and Hood's development, however, I haven't got a statement from either stating this, so I don't try and pass my opinion off as fact.

Your missing the point mate. My FACT that you call of, was that one of the reasons (main reason) that Buderus was brought here was to mentor and bring through the identified long term successor. That is fact, whether you like it or not. I don't need a club official to come on here and say it to back me up, I know it because I was told it at the time.

Incidentally, I notice that you have not picked up however on another poster, who is close to the academy and the youngsters in question, whom has also posted as fact the very same thing.

I wonder why you didn't pick up on that

Fact or not working with buderus is going to have helped the youngsters out and hopefully will have learned something from him. Good news they have been given new contracts and hopefully the opportunity

You see Ferdy mate, this is exaclty what I get a little smile at. I haven't even said what your openly saying, but I get drawn into things as though I have said that. What you have said is opinion, an opinion I agree on like, but opinion all the same and your not saying any different to that.

The fact I talk of, was one of the reasons Buderus was brought in, and that fact only. But for some reason, I don't know if it is to hide their own shortcomings, but some posters want to twist posts to their own way.

No, you are missing the point completely. Someone told me that Prince William is going to bring the kicking tees on the pitch tonight. That obviously makes it fact.



The strength of your argument lies in your correspondence. You don't have any. Your fact is about as much good as my "fact". Just because another poster has come and semi-validated your argument (bearing in mind he has no real fact) still doesn't mean that what [iyou[/i were trying to pass off as fact is any more valid. If [iyou [/ihad read his posts properly, you would have probably noted that he doesn't say Buderus was brought here for the main reason to train our young prospects. He says that our young prospects have benefitted from him being here. There is a massive difference in this.

If you are going to pass something off as fact, make sure your proof states what you are arguing!

What Ferdy is saying, is exactly what I tried to say. I'm not disagreeing with your opinion that Buderus has probably helped with McShane and Hood's development, but what you are actually arguing is completely different. You've added that this was the main reason for Buderus coming over, and also that all of the above opinions are fact. Have a read!

Who told you this? How exciting. Was it a club official? If it was I entirely believe it.

If it wasn't then I don't believe you, and don't understand the relevance.




Thankyou, finally some level of accuracy of what I said. The only difference of course that it was actual fact on the last statment rather than opinion.

If I was guessing I would say the main reason we signed buderus was to play for us, but obviously having quality players around our youngsters would be a good side benefit. Not fact just opinion. But working with people in any job, particulary experienced and successful people you can't help but learn from them and take the bits that work for you.

The relevance of it is exactly that. It's a complete falacy. Just because I said it doesn't make it fact. Just because the little voices in your head tell you something, doesn't make it fact.

You keep saying that it is fact, but if you had bothered to read my last post, it would be obvious to you that it is not a fact but an opinion, unless of course you can provide some evidence to the contrary.

Ferdy, again, you are spot on! Of course, he came to play, otherwise we would have hired a coach not a player in that instance.

What do you want me to do mate, drag an official from the club down to this message board and tell you it's so.









Does that make it fact then? because you have been told also?

If this "official" is Gary Hetherington, or someone else who would have been in the decision making process, yes, I suppose it would make it fact. Being aware of your astute love for Gary Hetherington, I very much doubt that this will happen.

If this "official" is not one of the decision makers at the club, then no, I hardly value his opinion either.

I would actually like you to be honest and accept that you tried to pass opinion off as fact. I realise that your ego is far too big for this, so will settle for venting my spleen.

It's not. And my astute love? what is that supposed to mean



It is



You have had my honest statement mate. I have no beef with you, so you not believing that, I won't be losing any sleep over or nor will I take it as an offence personally. You can vent your spleen all you like, feel free.

It's got to be difficult to pass anything off as fact if everbody has to be told personally first before it becomes so

Is that a fact?

Does this mean they will be playing the same roles interchange roles as Buderus ....AND Burrow next season ? Is Burrow playing his last season in Leeds colours ?

and you sure are a good judge of comedy because I've never seen anyone make so many people laugh as you did with your Phil Daly "facts".