I know for definite that Mossop had a medical at Kirkstall, I'm pretty sure that wigan would have been his first choice.

So did he not pass the medical and Wigan came in for him?

A reasonable stance in my opinion. GH hasn't got a bad track record in terms of who we do and don't bring in when you look at our trophy cabinet. We've passed on players in the past, Ellis when he returned from Aus being a notable example, who we would have liked to add to the squad. But when the bidding / salary requirements went past what we could justify with in our means and salary structures. Those financial structures have contributed to the building of a balanced cohesive team, that as I said haven't got a bad track record. Especially compared to the spend spend spend approach of other clubs.

He did turn up for a medical, true. We turned him down after seeing him struggle to push the door open.

Think you have misunderstood my comment, as others.

We have agreed terms with players on four seperate deals in the last year, Clarke twice, Brierley, and Westerman. Told the players the deal done. Yet have failed to do business with the respective clubs.

I am not saying going back on a deal to accomodate Burgess is necessarily wrong, although what happens if a Burgess deal doesn't go through. I am saying that it is not very professional to allow players to think otherwise, not when you proclaim yourself as a club with loyalty to players, and it doesn't matter who the player is.

To be fair our academy is doing fine. We finished well above you in the final standings.. we were graded as outstanding as were yourselves. We also have a former academy player playing in the nrl and also selected in the England squad. Not many can say that...

We have a host of academy prospects some have looked very good in a poor season for us. ..There is a fair list I could bore you with but as with all academy players some will make it at wire, some will go to lesser clubs, and others wil fall away.

The last time I checked the much praised Garbut Cuthbo and hardaker didn't come from Leeds academy. .? ? ? ?

Precisely, surely it makes more sense to agree the deal with the club first before then talking terms with the player. Complete waste of time/effort only to then find out said club will only do business for a certain transfer fee that you have no intention of paying

And all your players come from your academy, I didn't realise that

I might be wrong but by a quick count from memory, there at least 16 players in the squad from the academy, and plenty more plying their trade with other SL teams.

WTF are you on about? Your academy clearly hasn't produced a second rower/loose forward of the adequate standard or Wire wouldn't be in for Westerman.
In the same way as Leeds' didn't produce a prop so we had to sign one.

I'd imagine it's done that way so that Leeds can say to the other club that a deal is done with the player. Most clubs don't want players who'd rather play for another club and that can put pressure on the selling club to lower their transfer demands if the player is that keen to leave he's agreed a deal with another club.
It can also allow the player himself to put pressure on the selling club too.

It would seem to me to be the smart way to do it, as would not agreeing OTT transfer fees like £150k for Joe Westerman. Not only can that money be better spent but it also establishes a precedent as to what you'll pay for a certain standard of player and so inflates deals in the future.

Would a fee not need to be agreed in order to even discuss terms with a player? Surely without the selling club's permission this is tapping up no?

Don't give a #### about westerman, had good potential but never lived up to hype, good to average player at best. All Leeds need is a quality solid number 9 for next year, and other signings are luxury or projects not essential. Burgess or A Thurston,Cronk would be luxury marquee not westerman.