Banjoed? They stood toe to toe, Peacock missed most of his punches (clumsy technique), but Perry didn't exactly hurt him. In the Perry-Cross fight, Perry had a couple of full shots at Cross and didn't even make him move. Perry's got a good aim, but no result.

Add to that Perry vs. Clint Newton (and Mason) and Perry vs. Luke O'Donnell, and it could be Mark Carroll all over again.

You sound like an eager 10 year old. 'our players can batter your players' grow up ffs. If you judge player ability by how good they are at fighting, or think that players will be scared of others just because they've had a tussle in the past, then you need to grow up. They're professional rugby players, who's main objective is to win games, not have fights with the opposition.

If Peacock will be scared when he faces Perry then Mason will be absolutely bricking it when he faces Peacock!!

I've very rarely seen any seasoned prop who has made it to the top flight be scared of anyone, some people really need to grow up!

I love it if you look at the clip of Peacock and Perry fighting on youtube and read the comments. Half of them insist that Perry battered Peacock and the other half argue that Peacock "owns" Perry. In reality, two props throw a few, everyone else runs in to break it up and its over in a couple of seconds.

Its very rare anyone gets a clean punch in a la mason on fielden, and even then it doesn't necessarily mean they're harder. Steve Price (arguabley the best prop in the world at the time) got knocked out playing SOO, but if you watch the fight, he's got the guy on the ropes until a lucky punch sneaked through.

Quote ="Barnacle Bill"Agreed. But what you cannot do, by law, is merely cancel existing contracts as if they didn't exist. The RFL recognise this and have set increasing requirements for home grown players which allow teams the time to develop young English players to a standard worthy of playing in the premier Rugby League competition. Whilst at the same time recognising the valuable contribution that longer serving overseas players have made to various clubs and British Rugby League by allowing their contracts to be exempted from the quota as long as they remain at the same club. This by definition is a temporary situation.'" There is still no need to add to the overseas players you cant get rid of is there? Not being able to get rid of some of them is no excuse for signing more and extending contracts. The reason Hull KR havent reached the 5 overseas player target is nothing to do with Legal requirements, its just another red herring, Its to do with their short-termist outlook. Quote No I'm not.'" you clearly are, which is why you go on to say...... Quote You're the one constantly berating other clubs for exactly the kind of signing that Leeds have just made.'" Because i havent when it has been in isolation, only when part of a pattern. You have the very definition of a straw man argument here Quote Let me remind you of recent comments by yourself on this subject. I don't have to search too hard, you made them a few weeks ago... Strange that one because you clearly seem to be suggesting that it is quality that counts in an Aussie signing, whereas now... Or maybe it is the quality that counts? I wish you'd make your mind up Smokey. Because if it really is about the number and not the quality then why the need for this comment? Seems to be another reference to quality there mate Still... '" ill just repost what i told you last time, maybe it will sink in now Quote ="SmokeyTA" and again you are desperately trying to confuse two issues. There needs to be fewer overseas players playing in our league. I have criticised Hull Kingston Australia for going into next season with 10 overseas players. It has been defended by arguing that they were 'needed' because there werent sufficient English players out there. I have proved this as nonsense by highlighting the quality of overseas players you have brought in, compared to the quality of british players out there. Now you are attempting to equate the signing of Ben Cross and his reflection on the youth development and commitment to British players of Leeds, with signings of Lovegrove, Fisher, Green and Clinton and the signing of all of those with thats reflection on HKA and their youth development and commitment to british players which is clearly idiotic even for you. To re-iterate, if Justin Morgan wants to go out and sign 5 park footballers from Australia and give 20 british lads a go, fine. I think it would be stupid and a poor decision but we cant legislate for coaches simply being crap. However if he is signing 10 overseas players then that needs to justified, and defending it by saying there isnt the comparable quality over here is nonsense when you are signing the likes of Lovegrove. '" Quote How right you are! Maybe Rovers should have done this...'" it would be infinitely better than filling the league with very average overseas players Quote But then maybe if it's alright for Leeds then it's alright for Rovers eh?'" Surely you arent equating 6 overseas players as the same as 10 and rovers youth development with Leeds? Because if not what you have put is disingenuous nonsense, and if so its just plain mental. Quote It's really surprising Leeds had to make this signing because... Makes you wonder why Leeds didn't manage to find a young prop as good as Korkidas or Lovegrove in the lower leagues really. Still since Leeds exemplary scouting system failed to find a half decent prop, maybe there aren't as many potential SL players out there as you'd think. Or maybe you are just being an @rse.'" Psssst, they did, Kyle Amor and Luke Ambler to add to Ian Kirke Not to mention the England Captain Adrian Morley who was produced by Leeds Academy, Danny Ward, Ryan Bailey, Nick Scruton, and Gareth Carvell and Ewan Dowes from outside RL, and Jay Pitts from the fringes of the other squads, But other than those 10, they probably havent In related news, Leeds sign another young lower league player www.therhinos.co.uk/news/15088.php

Quote ="Barnacle Bill"Agreed. But what you cannot do, by law, is merely cancel existing contracts as if they didn't exist. The RFL recognise this and have set increasing requirements for home grown players which allow teams the time to develop young English players to a standard worthy of playing in the premier Rugby League competition. Whilst at the same time recognising the valuable contribution that longer serving overseas players have made to various clubs and British Rugby League by allowing their contracts to be exempted from the quota as long as they remain at the same club. This by definition is a temporary situation.'" There is still no need to add to the overseas players you cant get rid of is there? Not being able to get rid of some of them is no excuse for signing more and extending contracts. The reason Hull KR havent reached the 5 overseas player target is nothing to do with Legal requirements, its just another red herring, Its to do with their short-termist outlook. Quote No I'm not.'" you clearly are, which is why you go on to say...... Quote You're the one constantly berating other clubs for exactly the kind of signing that Leeds have just made.'" Because i havent when it has been in isolation, only when part of a pattern. You have the very definition of a straw man argument here Quote Let me remind you of recent comments by yourself on this subject. I don't have to search too hard, you made them a few weeks ago... Strange that one because you clearly seem to be suggesting that it is quality that counts in an Aussie signing, whereas now... Or maybe it is the quality that counts? I wish you'd make your mind up Smokey. Because if it really is about the number and not the quality then why the need for this comment? Seems to be another reference to quality there mate Still... '" ill just repost what i told you last time, maybe it will sink in now Quote ="SmokeyTA" and again you are desperately trying to confuse two issues. There needs to be fewer overseas players playing in our league. I have criticised Hull Kingston Australia for going into next season with 10 overseas players. It has been defended by arguing that they were 'needed' because there werent sufficient English players out there. I have proved this as nonsense by highlighting the quality of overseas players you have brought in, compared to the quality of british players out there. Now you are attempting to equate the signing of Ben Cross and his reflection on the youth development and commitment to British players of Leeds, with signings of Lovegrove, Fisher, Green and Clinton and the signing of all of those with thats reflection on HKA and their youth development and commitment to british players which is clearly idiotic even for you. To re-iterate, if Justin Morgan wants to go out and sign 5 park footballers from Australia and give 20 british lads a go, fine. I think it would be stupid and a poor decision but we cant legislate for coaches simply being crap. However if he is signing 10 overseas players then that needs to justified, and defending it by saying there isnt the comparable quality over here is nonsense when you are signing the likes of Lovegrove. '" Quote How right you are! Maybe Rovers should have done this...'" it would be infinitely better than filling the league with very average overseas players Quote But then maybe if it's alright for Leeds then it's alright for Rovers eh?'" Surely you arent equating 6 overseas players as the same as 10 and rovers youth development with Leeds? Because if not what you have put is disingenuous nonsense, and if so its just plain mental. Quote It's really surprising Leeds had to make this signing because... Makes you wonder why Leeds didn't manage to find a young prop as good as Korkidas or Lovegrove in the lower leagues really. Still since Leeds exemplary scouting system failed to find a half decent prop, maybe there aren't as many potential SL players out there as you'd think. Or maybe you are just being an @rse.'" Psssst, they did, Kyle Amor and Luke Ambler to add to Ian Kirke Not to mention the England Captain Adrian Morley who was produced by Leeds Academy, Danny Ward, Ryan Bailey, Nick Scruton, and Gareth Carvell and Ewan Dowes from outside RL, and Jay Pitts from the fringes of the other squads, But other than those 10, they probably havent In related news, Leeds sign another young lower league player www.therhinos.co.uk/news/15088.php

Its not your 'fault' now, but its one of the reasons

Quote ="SmokeyTA"There is still no need to add to the overseas players you cant get rid of is there? Not being able to get rid of some of them is no excuse for signing more and extending contracts. The reason Hull KR havent reached the 5 overseas player target is nothing to do with Legal requirements, its just another red herring, Its to do with their short-termist outlook. you clearly are, which is why you go on to say...... Because i havent when it has been in isolation, only when part of a pattern. You have the very definition of a straw man argument here ill just repost what i told you last time, maybe it will sink in now it would be infinitely better than filling the league with very average overseas players Surely you arent equating 6 overseas players as the same as 10 and rovers youth development with Leeds? Because if not what you have put is disingenuous nonsense, and if so its just plain mental. Psssst, they did, Kyle Amor and Luke Ambler to add to Ian Kirke Not to mention the England Captain Adrian Morley who was produced by Leeds Academy, Danny Ward, Ryan Bailey, Nick Scruton, and Gareth Carvell and Ewan Dowes from outside RL, and Jay Pitts from the fringes of the other squads, But other than those 10, they probably havent '" Can anyone smell kippers? Smokey must be back. So basically, what you're saying is signing 30+ Aussies is bad unless Leeds do it. Quality matters unless Leeds sign an average Aussie then it's numbers (obviously) which are the more important factor. For the last 4 years Rhys Lovegrove shouldn't have been playing SL because he's average and anyone could find a young English prop as good as him if they only looked hard enough, but now he is good enough and you never really meant that in the first place (despite going on and on and on about Lovegrove and his ability as a player for four years) that doesn't matter now and despite your protestations about other clubs players Leeds have singularly failed to find the young English prop you allude to, but that's ok because other clubs have props that played at Leeds for a bit. If having more than 5 non UK born players in the squad next season is a bad thing why are Rovers being singled out for your vitriol? OK it seems that Rovers will have more than other clubs next season, but if it's wrong it's wrong, the only difference is scale. How come you can make absolutely no concession for the fact that Rovers have delivered in such things as stadium development during their time in SL, something that other clubs have failed to do in over a decade of SL? And while you're at that you must concede that no club has an unlimited pot of money to fund everything they would like to the extent they would like. What Rovers have done is transform themselves from a National League club (in every sense) to a SL club that competes well, has an improving stadium, decent support (home and away), is building a stronger youth set up and contributes to a strong SL competition. What other clubs have had to make such wholeasale across the board improvements? Quote ="SmokeyTA"In related news, Leeds sign another young lower league player www.therhinos.co.uk/news/15088.php'" Yeah, the limit of Leeds scouting runs to watching a bit of Championship Rugby League on a Thursday night! It must have taken some search to uncover that hidden gem, there's no wonder no other SL club spotted his potential, no really that Leeds scouting system..wow!

Quote ="SmokeyTA"There is still no need to add to the overseas players you cant get rid of is there? Not being able to get rid of some of them is no excuse for signing more and extending contracts. The reason Hull KR havent reached the 5 overseas player target is nothing to do with Legal requirements, its just another red herring, Its to do with their short-termist outlook. you clearly are, which is why you go on to say...... Because i havent when it has been in isolation, only when part of a pattern. You have the very definition of a straw man argument here ill just repost what i told you last time, maybe it will sink in now it would be infinitely better than filling the league with very average overseas players Surely you arent equating 6 overseas players as the same as 10 and rovers youth development with Leeds? Because if not what you have put is disingenuous nonsense, and if so its just plain mental. Psssst, they did, Kyle Amor and Luke Ambler to add to Ian Kirke Not to mention the England Captain Adrian Morley who was produced by Leeds Academy, Danny Ward, Ryan Bailey, Nick Scruton, and Gareth Carvell and Ewan Dowes from outside RL, and Jay Pitts from the fringes of the other squads, But other than those 10, they probably havent '" Can anyone smell kippers? Smokey must be back. So basically, what you're saying is signing 30+ Aussies is bad unless Leeds do it. Quality matters unless Leeds sign an average Aussie then it's numbers (obviously) which are the more important factor. For the last 4 years Rhys Lovegrove shouldn't have been playing SL because he's average and anyone could find a young English prop as good as him if they only looked hard enough, but now he is good enough and you never really meant that in the first place (despite going on and on and on about Lovegrove and his ability as a player for four years) that doesn't matter now and despite your protestations about other clubs players Leeds have singularly failed to find the young English prop you allude to, but that's ok because other clubs have props that played at Leeds for a bit. If having more than 5 non UK born players in the squad next season is a bad thing why are Rovers being singled out for your vitriol? OK it seems that Rovers will have more than other clubs next season, but if it's wrong it's wrong, the only difference is scale. How come you can make absolutely no concession for the fact that Rovers have delivered in such things as stadium development during their time in SL, something that other clubs have failed to do in over a decade of SL? And while you're at that you must concede that no club has an unlimited pot of money to fund everything they would like to the extent they would like. What Rovers have done is transform themselves from a National League club (in every sense) to a SL club that competes well, has an improving stadium, decent support (home and away), is building a stronger youth set up and contributes to a strong SL competition. What other clubs have had to make such wholeasale across the board improvements? Quote ="SmokeyTA"In related news, Leeds sign another young lower league player www.therhinos.co.uk/news/15088.php'" Yeah, the limit of Leeds scouting runs to watching a bit of Championship Rugby League on a Thursday night! It must have taken some search to uncover that hidden gem, there's no wonder no other SL club spotted his potential, no really that Leeds scouting system..wow!

Nope

Nope, your attempts to say i have said something different to what i actually said are as silly as they are obvious.

Nope, I have never said Lovegrove is good enough, simply that you cant legislate for coaches being crap and recruitment being poor. Leeds have found young props from elsewhere, 3 of them, Amor, Ambler and Pitts. I have told you this two or three times now



Well, you seem to have answered your own question there. Hull Kingston Australia are the worst, hence they get more than those who are better. I have said quite clearly a number of times it is down to the scale of it.


Yes I agree no club has an unlimited amount of funds



The Stadium is still among the worst, the support is only 'decent' the youth set-up has produced pretty much nothing, ill wait to see more actual results and evidence before we start pretending this is an 'achievement' and they are a mid-table side. Some of these are pretty good things to have done in the time they have been in SL. NONE mean they couldnt have invested more in youth development and british players, and NONE mean they should be excused for having so many overseas players.

Plenty, Huddersfield, Widnes, Les Catalans have, Castleford, Salford and Wakefield will have all done better should they get their new stadiums built. There is nothing intrinsic to Saints that means they are ahead of Hull KR, they are delivering a new stadium, have a fantastic youth system, have plenty of british players, few overseas players

it seems further than Hull Kingston Australia's scouts can go, it seems they are too busy watching videos of the Queensland cup to watch lower league and youth rugby in this country.

Well done. I want you to bear this in mind a bit further down.



But it is still far better than it was five years ago, do you deny this? Rovers have delivered, other clubs with far more time in SL have not.



I think the accounts say thay have spent as much as they could. Yes they could have spent more, but should they have? Well if you were footing the bill I guess you would be a bit more circumspect than you are saying Rovers should have been.



No, none of them have had to make the across the board improvements Rovers have in such a short space of time. All bar Widnes have spent many years more in SL than have Rovers and delivered far less in almost every aspect of the club apart from, perhaps, youth development.



Given your intimate knowledge of which players Rovers make offers to, as opposed to those that agree terms, I can only assume you must be a director of the club. How else would you know which players are made offers and which aren't?

And, I though we'd already established, it's not the quality that counts.



Do you spend much time in Whitby by any chance? Good kippers there.

As long as we accept about 50% of your argument has been proven wrong, hence you starting about half way in

no
and other clubs have been criticised, and lets be honest, the amount spent by HKA so far on the stadium isnt huge, and certainly not comparable to what other clubs are trying to spend.

these are two completely contradictory statements, yes
i certainly would have been more circumspect when renewing Jake Websters contract, when spending hundreds of thousands on Willie Mason or Blake Green,

really, Hudds have achieved more, increased their crowds by more, have more youth products in the first team, have fewer overseas players, have played in more playoffs, more finals, finished higher in the table. Saints have been massively more successful, have a much better youth development history, more british players, more youth players, better crowds all in a stadium which is of a similar level to craven park, they have also managed to get themselves a fantastic new stadium underway. Les Catalans didnt exist 8 years ago, they entered SL 5 years ago and have been much more succesful than Hull KR, similar crowds, more stadium improvement, more french players than Hull KR british, fewer overseas players.

and crowd improvement, and on the pitch, and stadium improvement, and by most reasonable measures.

i can see which players have been signed and which havent, considering Hull KR are spending more than a fair few clubs on the cap we can be sure that it isnt lack of money deciding who they are signing. Its a little silly to say HKA cant afford to sign players like Hardaker, Ambler, Pitts, Lunt, Kirmond, etc when they have players like Mason, Galea and Newton, not to mention the rumoured 100k going to Webster and rumours of a similar amount to Dobson.

thats funny, you couldnt argue about it when i addressed it so you tried to sneak it in at the end. Awww

So who's fault is the ' reason ' ?

depends which way you look at it, its either everyones or no-ones

So which way do you look at it ?

i see it as everyones, I dont disagree that SL could do more to improve the lower leagues, i also cant say that the lower leagues help themselves and there is the level of co-operation between the two that is needed.

I would like to see more money move from the top to the bottom of the professional/semi-pro structure, but that should only be on the basis that more players make the the opposite journey and the lower leagues provides a true pathway and proving ground for young players.

There seems to be an attitude from some of the major players in the lower league that it should be a competition to rather than a supporter of the game above it at both SL and often international level

No, as is often the case with replies to your posts it's probably best just to ignore the nonsense.



Ah, so real money actually spent is not comparable to pretend money not spent, got you.



I doubt Blake Green is getting hundreds of thousands, I'm damn sure he won't be getting asd much as the 32 year old journeyman prop Leeds have just signed. In any event, those represent future costs, not signing them would make no difference at all to what has been done.

Have they?

Ah, you only want to focus on onfield criteria as opposed to across the board changes at the club, not the point I was making and in any event, they have been in SL far longer than Rovers, you would expect them to be more advanced in some of those aspects (well I would but you probably wouldn't) what with having about a decades worth more Sky money than Rovers have had.



Are you really saying that Rovers should be on par with Saints in these aspects? Really? I think you're in a minority of one there Smokey. I'd cut back on the kippers mate.





Except that they did exist because they were formed from UTC, they have not been as succesful, their average league placing for the time Rovers have been in SL is lower than Rovers, they are in a far different position in terms of drawing French players compared to Rovers drawing English, on the pitch not as good as Rovers, stadium improvement maybe, well done to them, they've actually done something (a bit like Rovers) most reasonable measures? well not if the measures you indicated are reasonable.



Players like blah, blah, blah. They are signed up, if there were players like those you mention Leeds wouldn't need to sign a 32 year old Aussie prop. Rumours, oh yeah that's the basis for a reasoned argument.





You haven't addressed it, you've bounced around all over the place trying to get out of the knots you tied yourself up in. Lovegrove for the last 4 years was not good enough, now you don't care if park footy players are signed. Funny that's only since Leeds signed a 32 year old Aussie journeyman. What should SL clubs be spending less on?



Why's that?







Watch the bones in them kippers Smokey.

A feeder club comp then ?

aaahhh, ok we will pretend i didnt prove you wrong.

what led you to believe thats what i said?

clearly what you have done makes a difference to what you have done, it pretty much defines it.

in SL yes.
other than the off field criteria mentioned yes.

im saying there is nothing intrinsic in saints that puts them in a better position than Hull KR, the reason they are where they are and have made the changes and improvements they have is because they have been better run.

no they werent, they were formed from a merger of two clubs in 2002.and their playoff wins and CC final appearance? their 3rd position in the league? no they arent.

except where they have been more successful?

more than rovers.
you think improvements in crowds, facilities and on the pitch arent good indicators of the improvements in a club?

there are players like that, thats why they were mentioned. What there isnt is a reason to equate Leeds losing two overseas players and adding one to Hull Kingston Australia adding 2 to an already high total.

are you saying they arent reasonable estimates of their wages? do you think it changes the principle?

your attempts to mis-represent what i said are laughable. Here is what I said about your signing of Willie Mason, a little while before Leeds signed SoO prop forward Ben Cross

Yes, a feeder club comp. Thats what it is, its what it always will be. Its the 2nd tier of the league, thats where it fits into the Pyramid.

But unfortunatley the dual contract system isn't condusive to encouraging Championship clubs to produce their own players , and SL clubs generally wont do season long loan deals , so what system should be in place ?

It also damages long term planning which is one of the main criticisms of clubs in the past

If you go for full ' feeder ' or reserve teams playing in the lower leagues it would result in those clubs losing their identity and the bulk of what few fans they still have

So no real benifit to the non SL club ,

Becasue you didn't, again.



You saying it?





Ah, the Smokey gibberish we all know and love.





In the last 5/6 years from what they were to what they are now? Huddersfield had a new season ticket offer for this season, it did well. They increased their crowds by more than any SL club, but I doubt they increased by as much as Hull KR's from NL1 to now.



Which amounts to?



That may well be. They've probably been better run than most SL clubs, what is your point? Are you saying every club should be in the Grand final every year?



So they did exist? Make your mind up Smokey?



And excluding where they haven't.



Well done them, quite a rarity that eh? A SL club actually making improvements and not fobbing everyone with excuses for year after year. There's not many clubs like that, Catalans for one, Rovers for another...



You praising Rovers now Smokey? That's not like you. Still I won't have to wait long for you to change your mind I suppose.





Oh, I see, paying over the odds for average 32 year old Aussies is OK.



I wouldn't know, you're the director.



Well I'm sure I'm not the only one laughing at what you said. And if it's number and not quality, why is signing Mason OK? Answers on a postcard please.

Have Catalans spent their own money on their council owned stadium ?

i dont know, its a complex question. I dont disagree with what you have put but at the moment its just a question of doing the best we can.

I would maybe look at having feeder areas rather than feeder clubs as halfway house. SL clubs take responsibility for an area and group of lower league clubs and work with them to produce the best young players, give them a proving ground and reward the clubs when they do, but still allow the lower league clubs to keep their identities.

for example, Leeds have Fev, York and Sheffield as their feeder clubs. They can loan out youngsters as and when, similar to the dual contract system. They can take the youngsters from them for a set fee, they can work together in training, coaching etc, but the lower league clubs still put out their own team, in their own colours, can make their own signings etc. I think that would work quite well. Maybe even a reversal of the situation where Leeds can take dual contract players from the lower league clubs. I think we would see a lot more movement and likely unearth a few gems if SL clubs could take a player away for a few weeks/months training and maybe even a few first team games without committing to a couple of years contract and a fee, so Leeds can call on the lower league players for say £1k per month payment to the lower league club.

ahh but i did
ahh but i didnt, it what i said is there for all to see.

well that wouldnt be the comparision would it. it would the Hudds attendance in NL1 to the hudds attendance at the corresponding time in SL

see above.

no, im saying im saying

no they didnt, prior to 2002 Les Catalans Dragons didnt exist

well it is a simple comparison, a CC final, a couple of play-off wins and a 3rd position in the league beats 0 cc finals, 1 play off win and a 4th position in the league.

as we have just discussed the Hull Kingston Australia improvements are less than the Dragons improvements. Your lack of any sense of scale is quite telling.

as is your lack of comprehension, but just for you ill post it again, if you want this time you can read what it actually says rather than what you so desperately want it to



again. ill simply repost what i wrote and we will just pretend it means exactly what it says

that clearly doesnt affect whether or not i think that you think £100k for Webster and Dobson is a reasonable estimate or not now does it.

It isnt, hence why we had this conversation on the other thread, hence me putting [inobody really minds you bringing in Mason, its bringing in Mason to join the Lovegroves, Fishers, Clintons, and Websters[/i

, it would be unrealistic for any club to be forced to pay set amounts to their own juniors but then find it difficult to accomadate those players because of dual contract players

If SL clubs want to have their players play at a higher level they should either buy out a Championship club and run them as they have in Australia , or put them out on fixed term loans 6 or 12 months minimum