I can feel a "Liam Botham" moment coming on

I'd rather see two points. All this moral "I'd rather beat a full strength side, because it feels sweeter" mumbo jumbo I just can't get on board with.

I'd rather walk all over them. It'll boost the points difference if nothing else. Not saying we will, in fact I'm sure we won't. I'm just saying, there's no room for morals, and "making other teams competitive", that's just tosh.

Bottom line is thus; Amor, what ever impact he may have on our squad, definitely improves the Wakefield squad. Why should we strengthen the squad of a team we're playing this week? We shouldn't.

So you would rather see them walked over every week ala Leigh's superleague contribution, rather than sending a few players to them, giving them players superleague experience, and helping another poor local club out. I know which bit I would choose, end of the day, its giving players like Kyle Amor and Luke Ambler the chance to play in superleague rather than being stuck in our reserves not gaining any of the much-needed experience to boost themselves and show the coach what they are made of.

I'm not thick (yes really!). I completely and utterly understand the advantages to loaning him out. Not only do I understand it, I also agree with it. I would much rather Ambler, Amor etc were playing against SL every week, and training along side other SL standard players (at Quins & Wakefield that bit's debatable!).

In terms of "helping another poor local club", no thanks. Couldn't give a monkeys about that. I agree with loaning players out for our reasons, to improve our players, not to "help them". (Woe is Wakefield. Poor old Wakefield.)

I just think there should be a "Non Competition" clause or something. Especially in terms of this week. We're light in the pack, and we're strengthening our opponents pack for them!? That's nuts.

being ! (Sorry to steal your thunder ? wheels)

But they could have had that regular SL experience by being given priority at Leeds and having better faith in them.

Or do you think Cross and Kirke are better options for this season ?

Whilst I know what you're saying about Ambler/Amor instead of Cross/Kirke, I would even say I probably agreed... that's a completely different debate in its own right.

My debate is much simpler, should we be strengthening the squad of a team we're playing this week? or should we be weakening them as much as possible to gain the league points, and possibly boost our points difference? It's got to be the latter.

I agree. (Unless of course

Amor has been told where his true allegiance should be...and that he will be renumerated accordingly

)

I would agree 100% with remarkable on this one, strengthen another side at our own expense, as hopie says another "Botham " maybe, i hope the club dont come to regret this come 5.00pm Sunday, Im not saying tha ka would be the difference, but our injury situation is dire at best and we are loaning out individuals and fowards at that !!, do you think that you think John Kear would do that boot on tother foot, not a chance, I know what he would say.

Im all for getting these guys experience but not at our expense even if they said yea you can keep kyle, however he will not be playing against us this week as part of the deal.

I will be dissappointred if we now do not have some forwards back in the team from injury, the club should expect to be questioned if we lose this game due to the arrogance of believing we can let a player play against us in our current sutuation and with our injuries at present.

I can just seen wigan loaning a player to saints and then letting him play in the next derby !!!!!!!!!!!!

I will be diss

I agree, and I would go further. By this I think we are understanding that Kylie and Bailey are back. Would it not be better to have a guy in who is playing, fit, and on form at the moment (judging by MOM last week), than a guy who has not played since last season.

Again, I'm not so much saying Amor should be playing for us over Bailey. It's a debate in its own right. Perhaps he should (although there's an argument that Bailey is always going to have a 'first game back', so that should probably be against Wakefield.) but more that Amor should not be playing for them.

Listening to some on here last season he was all written off without a chance of Super League rugby.

Funny old world.

Any clause forbidding him from playing would presumably have had to be written into the original loan agreement.

At that time, Leeds would have anticipated having at least three of Burgess, Cross, Bailey and Leuluai available for this fixture, all of whom they would regard as better players than Amor. If he's not good enough to get into your first team, why worry about having to play against him?

Relax.

It's only Wakefield.

Just like it was only Salford the week before last.

These fixtures exist to provide teams like Leeds with a breather, along with an opportunity to paper over the cracks.

Another meaningless SL fixture in the grand scheme of things.

Tee hee.

Eh? Where?

Would it have been better ??

....I really do have problems with this being and been (my achille's heel)

I'm not proclaiming Amor as the new JP. Nor am I saying he'd even get into our squad (even in its current state!).

Whatever Amor's impact on Leeds' squad, or Super League in general, is irrelevant. He improves Wakefield's squad. And it makes no sense whatsoever to improve the squad of the team you're playing against. Even if it is "only Wakefield".

You want Amor to have first team experience at SL standard - but you want to dictate to Wakey which games he can and can't play?

Is it just me, or is this a nailed on case of having the cake and eating it too?

Imagine if Leeds had done as you suggest - what message does that send out to other teams when we're trying to offload players on them via a loan?

Anyway - surely playing against Leeds would be good for Amor? A chance to show BM what he is (or isn't) missing....

He was absolutley everywhere in that game.

Errrr......

Yep! Exactly that.

Phew! For a minute there I was worried I wasn't making sense.

It says... "You can Loan our players, but they can't play against us."

Am I missing something here? You're making it out like that's a totally ludicrous suggestion?! I think it's perfectly reasonable.

It's not very sporting though, is it?

It's a backdoor way of weakening Wakey, and gives Leeds an unfair advantage (of sorts

)

The other way of looking at it, is they should allow him to play, as he's probably spent enough time with the Leeds players for them to know his weaknesses - Maybe it actually works in our favour?

As others have said, if he's not good enough for the Leeds first team, why should we be worried about facing him?

My god you lot are insecure, get a grip. Do you really think that whatever slim chance Trinity have of turning you over has anything to do with whether Amor plays or not! He's only played a few times for us and his first decent effort was against Hull. Paul King is a far bigger loss for us, our best prop by a mile.

If you lose to us and try to use Amor's inclusion as an excuse then I feel whatever credibility Leeds fans have left will be lost.

Last season, Matty Smith played AGAINST St. Helens for Salford.

He totally and utterly ran the show, scoring a hat-trick of tries in the process. Now obviously there's no way to prove this, and one man doesn't make a team, but I would say it's not out of the question to suggest had he not played, Saints would've won.

Now it turned out, those 2 points wouldn't have made a difference to the league, and Saints managed their customary Grand Final Loss anyway. But given that Saints only finished 2nd on points difference (by 2 points I might add!!), it very VERY nearly could have been the difference between 2nd & 3rd. It would also mean they would have only finished 2 points behind finishing League Leaders?! And who's to say what would've happened if Wigan had have felt more pressure on the run in with Saints breathing down their necks? Or what if that match had been in the Challenge Cup?! They'd have been out. Simple as that! The real joke is, they sold him at the end of that season anyway! So the argument of "developing Smith by giving him SL experience" is totally null & void anyway!

I totally appreciate that it's all "ifs, buts & maybes", and I know there are people on here that say... "But it didn't happen. So what's the point", and I get that too. I also know that Amor is no Smith, and isn't likely to run the show, score a hat-trick and single handedly cost us the 2 points in quite such a clear cut way as Smith did. And obviously, if we win, it's all much a do about nothing.

Loaning out a player should be totally to the benefit of the parent club, obviously the other club should benefit too, that's great, but they shouldn't benefit to the detriment of the parent club! It's not a case of having your cake and eating it, it's a case of business. We did the leg work, we found him, we've trained him, we've invested in him, he's our asset (however much of an asset is irrelevant and debatable but that's besides the point).

We've already lost to Quins with Ambler easily one of their best players on the night. Would them not having Ambler meant we would've won?! Probably not. But who's to say?! Then we'd have an extra 2 points, and even with the Saints/Wire loses could be as high as 3rd.

I know we should be beating Quins (or Wakefield) with or without Ambler (or Amor), but the bottom line is we didn't. Ambler SHOULD NOT have played for Quins, and Amor SHOULD NOT play for Wakefield.