oh dear! The game against the bulls is the game I was talking about he played about 5 mins. you know the game when it was red hot at odsal

Well I certainly know how to use the quote facility better than you do....



As for me "knowing best"? Allow me to let you into a wee secret. This is an Internet message forum where people come on to discuss Rugby League. It does not discriminate so people who post on here will come from varying backgrounds, countries, class and some will be more intelligent than others. Therefore this will generally lead to people having the occasional differences of opinion which you are entitled to air. (One mans' meat is another mans' poison so to speak.)

I do not particularly rate Moi Moi and you do. Fine. These things happen you know. I have no wish to change your opinion of him any more than you have any chance of changing MY opinion.

It is just a shame that you are completely and utterly wrong on this one.

Well this topic has certainly veered from its original, but anyway .....

I think we all know the nick / luke swap is total rubbish , and like previously stated this is 100% not happening .



In respect of the better player i would say nick every-time, the only attribute i would take from luke is his off-load.
Defense we are all in aggreeance that nick is better, ( especially in his reading of defense)

I haven't read stats from last year but surely there done is a ratio of time spent on a pitch or ball carries= meters gained , if there not and there just game = meters made, then i would find it hard to believe that lukes are greater than nicks purely because nick plays much longer than luke does.
If they are done in an accurate manner , i would still take nick going forward purely because of how well he finds the floor and gets a quick play-the-ball , that is worth more than an extra 2m.

Another thing that nobody has mentioned are the amount of errors luke makes , especially in big games or in good areas of the field .

In regards to leeds choosing luke over nick, leeds decided to re-sign bailey on a 3 year deal ( i think) and with his rise, leeds offered nick less. So really leeds chose bailey over nick!!!

You are way off with what happend with Scroots.

From memory, the main reported reason for his coming to Bradford was that he hoped to get more game time. Which seems reasonable to me.

Leeds fans will ALWAYS argue it was because of money. Because in their minds, why would anyone want to leave Leeds for any other possible reason?

It is often a large factor in any "transfer", but from I was told at the time with Scruton, that certainly wasn't the reason for him.

Well there are probably a dozen (or more) reasons why any player might want to leave, or join, a particular club, and I'm sure money would be up there near the top. It ain't the be all and end all though.

It's called "selective amnesia". Just ask any of 'em about James Lowes, they'll say "Who?"

Hate to prove u wrong but I am a Leeds fan and I believe he wanted to move prodominantly to do with getting a starting spot which he had a far better chance of getting with you than Leeds.
I think money is a factor with all transfers but not the main issue in scroots case

Scroots had been in and out of the Leeds team for a few seasons. He spent most of 07 injured but had a pretty good 08. The deal offered to him was the same or very similar to ablett. it was 1 year on good money but it was a case of good money if you are playing week in week out. Good pay if you play so to speak. Less money if your not getting picked. If you play well and prove your worth then a renegotiation was on the table come season end. Ablett did this had a great season and got a 4 year deal after. Scroots was offered a second option too a longer contract but on a lot less money. With peacock, kylie, bailey, kirke and burgess to fight him for a place obviously scroots wasn't sure the deals on the table were right for him. The bulls offered a better chance of game time due to your lack or experienced front rowers and were offering better money for doing it. if you think scroots thought Bradford was a better club in the making than Leeds? You might be right, he is a big daft prop. But realistically if Leeds offered him the same contract the bulls did there is noway he would have left. he's never gonna be a world beater so he made the best business decision which I can't fault. But don't be so naive to think it's other wise.

It's more believable than disco going to Bradford to relaunch his international career?

Nice to see there are a few. However the more blinkered people like Wilko will always back up my point. I accept it's not ALL Leeds fans though.

So a player moves to a rival club for more money? I'm in shock. I can't belive this sort of thing goes on...

Whatever pal im possibly the least blinkered person you could wish to meet.
I've told it totally how it is.

I said pretty much the same as ferdy, so I don't know what's rattled your cage? Time of the month?

What part am i way off with , maybe the term baileys new contract was ??? i did write 3 years i think.
Nick was offered a lesser deal than he was on at the time so i don't see whats exactly way off???
I think mr hethrington was trying to use the old " home town club, winning trophies , but pay you next to nothing!!"
I do agree nick moved on for a more regular starting position aswel, but it was also due to the higher salary bradford were offering and more to the point the lesser one leeds were

Bailey was already contracted up from the year before. Bailey and burgess were under contract scroots wasn't. In my opinion Bailey has had a bit of luck been contracted up when other haven't been or he might have been moved on whilst others might have stayed.

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)

I heard just tonight that Gary "I want £8968926148961289468129468912649846891246891046018946809126 for Harris and love spending tax payers money on kick n crap" Hethrington is donating £5,000,000 to the OSV.

Leeds will move for Scruton for the 2012 season, according to a reliable source.

I think, in both cases, the players felt a change of environment would help with their respective careers, and to be honest I tend to take press statements with a large pinch of salt, since most of them are just filled with what they feel the public wants to hear. This often happens at successful clubs with players who feel themselves on the 'outer' in terms of chances, or money of course. Unlike Leeds, who as you point out, had a bit of a surplus, we were short of decent props when Scruton was signed, which obviously meant we were going to put a higher valuer on his services. That is just a fact of life, and whatever he is paid he's been excellent at the Bulls.

As for Diskin I don't really know the situation at the Rhinos, but I reckon Bradford, where we already have two decent hookers, just saw a quality player who could do a job for the club and he clearly wanted to try pastures new. If he fits in as well as Scrutes, then he'll do for me in spades.

I agree with that. I think you have signed a good player in disco. Disco was just unlucky that buderus despite his age is in a different class still. Plus we have 2 younger hookers who whilst been ruff around the edges has bags of talent and potential. Disco was on the verge of been surplus to requirement and a long term deal with him been a family man will have been a draw, plus his brother in law been the new number 2 and as has been rightly said he's probably first choice hooker at the bulls if le strange will play in the halves. again I can't fault him for his move. I hope he does well, he will always be a legend in my eyes where ever he plays.

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".