So you claim, you've made plenty of other claims on here too that have been total horlicks.
If Clark or any others [ihave[/i told you that Leeds have signed them before any deal's been confirmed between the club's then that person's an idiot and you're clearly not to be trusted by those people either.



Leeds win the treble, let's find something else to chelp about.....

Wasn't the Clark deal dependent on Warrington signing a new hooker? Something completely out of Leeds' control. Wasn't Clark communicating with his current club at the same time and knew their stance/position.

Obviously not because he told Gotcha it was a done deal.

No, your missing the key point yet again. LEEDS told the player it was a done deal. By that the player expects the club to complete it, not presume.

I am making the point, subject to it being correct about Westerman, that there have being four occurrences in the last year of Leeds doing this. Once, is perfectly understandable, but four times you would think somebody should learn from it and be a bit more professional.

There is no need to get all defensive on the club, it is not a complaint, it is a point.

I'm intrigued. Leeds were telling these players it was a done deal.

But what were Warrington telling Clark?
What were Leigh telling Brierly?
What was Hull telling Westerman?

Or are we to believe that these players (and their agents) solely listened to the 'buying' club and not once sought the stance of their current clubs? If so they deserve zero sympathy in that unlikely scenario.

Hull actually allowed Leeds to speak to Westerman, and Warrington allowed them to speak to Clarke.

Funny enough it is the losing out on Westerman which actually made us lose out on Clarke.

Clarke has lost his driving licence, and one of the major reasons in his desire to be back over here. Westerman is effectively to be his chauffeur at Warrington and a major reason on why they would pay the deal Hull wanted.

It still doesn't excuse the Leeds position of making assurances on players before coming to a deal with clubs, which is what I was pointing out. The quality of the player being irrelevant.

Westerman's still got his licence?

So it's Warrington who changed their minds on the Clark deal then and not Leeds. But it's Leeds you're criticising for it.

Also Wire not being able to find a replacement hooker is more likely than simply they couldn't find a chaffeuer for Clark until Joe Westerman (hardly the most reliable guy to entrust chaffeuer duties too) came along.

Ok.

Spending 100k+ on a player so he can be a taxi service for another player who has lost his license.

Seems legit.

I can give you 100% fact on the Mossop episode. I knew about 15 minutes after he did that his Parramatta contract had ended. Before he was even back in the UK Hetherington and McDermott had arranged a meeting with him. He didn't have a medical. It was just a meeting. Moose was very impressed by them both and was going to sign but when Wane heard of his availability and the fact he was going to sign for the Rhinos he made sure that he got him a better deal.

Balls to Mossop, Westerman and Clark. I want to know Gotcha's inside track about Burgess signing. I'm really loving this episode of jackanory

No , Leeds haven't agreed a deal with Hull over Westerman, having agreed terms with him and told him done deal. As a consequence they also missed out on Clarke, who had also agreed terms with Leeds, who also told him a done deal. Unless of course they can persuade Wire to change again on Clarke.

The "criticism" is not not signing players, it is telling players deal done before actually agreeing with the club concerned. People need to stop getting on the defensive and actually look at what is said, and the movement at hand.

And as for Burgess the comment on him and Westerman came from a coach at Leeds, whom I shall not name, who was at our clubs presentation evening last night. There is three signings to be announced over next month.

Yes but what did Hull tell Westerman? What did Warrington tell Clark?

You're telling us what Leeds told these players. Your story is based on these players only listening to Leeds' version of events.

Either Warrington agreed and told Clark it was a done deal.....and are the ones to back out once they've found an expensive chauffeur.

Or they told Clark it wasn't yet a done deal and considering they're his current employers then you'd go with that if you were in Clark's shoes surely.

You're only presenting Leeds' apparent version of events, what were the other clubs version of events? Pretty important considering it was their players in the first place.

So Hetherington, who has been recruiting / selling players for 30 odd years gets permission to speak to a player from their current club without agreeing a fee. Meets said player and agrees terms. Then tells player its a done deal before he has agreed a transfer fee. This from a man who keeps his cards close to his chest at the best of times and has managed to keep many signings under wraps until it was officially announced ( a few exceptions accepted ).
Not for the first time I will take some of what is posted on here with a barrow load of salt.

I only know the Leeds position. But considering that Hull and Warrington had agreed with the talks for Leeds to have, that would show the players they would be leaving if deals can be done would it not? Therefore I don't understand why you are so fixed on what they said.

As for Brierley, the first time, well that was made clear from the Leigh Chairman, who made it clear Leeds had spoken to him without their Permission. So I guess as they didn't know, they couldn't have told the player any different to what Leeds were saying could they?

If someone offered you a contract for a job, which you wanted, would you not believe it until your current employer told you?