Thats exactly what i was saying previously , it was not a case of keeping nick or keeping luke.
However bailey was then given an improved 3 year deal ( late on into his last year if i remember correctly ) whilst nick was left to go into his last year without any discussions , and when they did come they were on lesser terms.
Hence how i come to my post that it seems leeds chose bailey over nick (but as ive previously said i dont think mr hethrington actually thought nick would go as the contract wasn't much less and he was very proud playing at leeds)

Money was a factor - Scruton wasn't high in the pecking order at Leeds at the time, so moving to Bradford allowed him to take up a bigger contract BUT also get selected in the starting 13. At the time it looked like Burgess was the better prospect, mainly for his offload game.

In 2010 terms Scruton is definitely the better player, in part due to Burgess being unable to sort his defence out which has led to him being selected less frequently. I rate Scruton but think he could do with concentrating on his game more instead of looking for the big hit, although he did seem to improve with this in his second season with Bradford.

Well I hope we try to get him tied down to a 3 year contract.

Along with L'Estrange who, according to the LE wants to stay as long as possible.

scrutes said a while back in an interview that he wanted to earn a new contract, And Kearney said similar to l'estrange that he'd like to stay beyond next year. I'd say those 3 have to be our key targets with regards to getting them re-signed before anti-tampering deadline. Although given we already have diskin on a long deal, l'estrange may depend on how o'brien develops

Oxymoron alert: "Anti-tampering deadline".

yeah I know its a farce adey and everyone pretty much ignores it. What I meant was those are the players we should be looking at signing up as priorities and then seeing what money we have left to sign the other ooc players.