If there's a player out there that could turn our heads and make us think that parting with Kallum Watkins could be worthwhile then it's Sam Burgess.

Problem is, would you rather try keep Watkins for another 4/5+ years or get Burgess for a single season until he inevitably wanted to go back to Australia.

Agreed much as I admire Sam Burgess he does remind me of Sonny Bill Williams and that's not The much vaunted Leeds culture that has been built up and envied .

Can't argue with your logic gents. Having considered the wider picture I wouldn't see a trade in against the 'Leeds culture' just to pursue an impossible signing and I do love seeing Kallum in a bit of space.

Unless Watkins made it clear to Leeds that he wanted off (and we couldn't change his mind) then I wouldn't do it. If we could convince him to stay here and sign for even longer then that's a better long term bit of business, even though I'd love a cheeky one season stint from Burgess.

Watkins has won everything in SL now, you have to wonder at what point he will want a new challenge.

Perhaps, or perhaps he should take a look at the following three men and seen how the last few months have turned out for them

- Kevin Sinfield
- Sam Tomkins
- Sam Burgess

He's got one ready-made: to emulate the old guard. He'll be up for it, I reckon.

Would be a great bit of business for Leeds. No guarantee how long Watkins will stay as he could well be tempted by big financial deal and new challenge sometime soon anyway. Not sure we could afford the additional fee though.

Much rather we kept Watkins than gaining Sam Burgess - no matter for how long.

IF we do lose him then I guess Handley can step up to being a regular, but then where is the cover for the threequarters?

Watkins would be a HUGE loss..... maybe a swap of Sam Burgess [uAND[/u Eastmond would soften the loss, but even for these two I still think I'd prefer to keep Watkins - one of the most exciting players to watch in my whole life of watching RL.

That was exactly my reaction