and its a made up one

on average id say its 25-30

edit ; his SL career avg is 25.43

for interest Whitings is 16.32, played in wider positions and teams not having to defend as much, id easily say he could manage another 8 or 9 per game

Is whiting any were near testimonial year yet? Who else is near testimonial year?

First season was 2004 so good few years yet. Yeaman will be closest (2002 I think his debut was) and isn't Radford hoping to get one ?

how?

dowes must be the longest serving after horne and yeaman?

No why? Oh sorry i shouldnt answer back your a moderator

your allowed to on here.

Players can apply for a testimonial after 300 first team games regardless of number of clubs, IIRC.

You are right though, longest servers are Horne (1999), Yeaman (2001), Dowes (2003) then Richard Whiting (2004).

Over his two spells at the club maybe ? Not sure how long that is but I thought I heard he was after a testimonial. Yeah, Dowes will be after them two.

cheers

am i correct in thinking that a club is only allowed one testimonal a year?

Not sure on that one mate.

From my understanding that is correct, only one per season, and it's ten years at a club, not a number of games? (not sure if those years have to be consecutive??)

Although Keith Senior was granted a mini testimonial recently, and he's not been at Leeds for 10 years.

Spot on! Though try and get it through the impervious skull of 'Mr Mansfield'
who's obviously had it in for Whiting since he dropped a gooly and could have ended up paying dearly for it. Know what I mean?????????

didn't gene get a testimonal?

I agree about Whiting, I like him as a player but don't think he is good enough to warrant a starting place. However as a squad player he is exactly what a side needs as he can cover a number of positions and never lets the side down.

Washbrook for me has more potential than any of our young players. He is definatle a 13 rather than a 6 but can do a job at 6. At 13 he offers the right amount of passing, running, kicking and tackling skills and it is well known amongst the squad that he is a bit of a spokesman for the younger players. I can see a lot of similarities in him and Sinfield at a similar age and I think these are the type of players we should be building a side around. Along with Tansey, Yeaman, Hall, Briscoe etc. Play Fitz in the backrow and allow a Washy a run at 13, before his injury he was really looking the part and I remember a Sin Bin thread where his name constantly came up as a future GB player by fans of other sides.

He needs to get his form back after his injury layoff but I think he will perform given a run in the side. All itwould mean is either Radford or Tickle missing out but that to me is no issue. I'd have Tickle with Fitz and Manu off the bench. Washbrok ahead of Tickle/Radford everyday of everyweek.

I couldn't give a flying what you think of me, your opinion of me is pointless and irrelevant.

That Whiting can read the game is also largely irrelevant. As I pointed out, Garry Schofield can still read teh game extremely well, so why not have him in the side, afterall, he is unlikely to be as limited pace wise as Whiting.

Simply put, Whiting is not top 4 standard!

That's just silly and doesn't really add to the debate.

Whiting is fast enough for a forward, not for a back IMO. As squad utility cover his pace is OK. And I'm not sure why you think that the ability to read the game is irrelevant for an RL player.


In your opinion.

For a regular first team player you may well be correct, but as a utility player to cover injuries I'd say he's of a good standard given SC limitations.

May as well stop saying it, the usual Whiting love fest is in full swing, I'm just glad the people running the club and making decisions about signings are a bit more open eyed than the Hovis brigade on here.

All fair comment. In particular I agree he is a 13 and has shown good character and commitment to the team playing out of position in the halves. I would be happy to see him given first shot at loose forward in place of either player you mention. It really is his time to grasp the chance now and fullfil this potential this season. If he reached the standard of Sinfield I would be more than happy.

There is actually a fair few of us trying to take a balanced view. Not sure why this is generating so much heat and light TBH.

I think it's when people try and suggest that he is better than he really is. As you have suggested, he has utility value, but that utility value will also be available in other players coming into the senior squad, and probably at a lower cost than Richard, it will be evidenced at the end of the season if he moves on and where he moves on to.

Admittedly he offers more than GH or TL did, but that is hardly high praise.

Players can be granted testimonials by the RFL - Senior & Gene are prime examples, although i believe these are for a reduced timescale (testimonial events can only run for 4 months). So Radford could do something.

And yes a club can only hold one testimonial a season, but this could be shared by 2 players equally

I think most believe he is a decent utility player who has a CC cup winners medal and a fair bit of SL experience under his belt. He wont be on a big contract. Referring to your earlier post he was signed by the current people running the club so I'm not sure what point you were making there. He is by all accounts a good pro on and off the pitch - something I'm sure you would give credit for. If Turner has a good season I can see Whiting maybe struggling to get a new contract but who knows what will happen.

This forum is all about opinions some have a different one to you, get over it get a life and move on and accept that some people think differently to you

No argument with any of that.

The point is that he was signed for potential, which for a number of reasons hasn't been realised in a specific role, and I imagine the club will allow him to move on if they feel we have a better alternative at the club (which Turner could well become, as may some other junior player)

Indeed, but that isn't a reason to keep a player if they don't actually add anything to the side, which he may not after 2010.



Indeed, it is (as always) if's, but's and maybe's, time will tell.