We could have easily have seen Keith retained for another year or 2, instead we promoted young Zak to the 4 shirt.

You have to question how a player such as Justin Carney rocks up at a bargain basement club rather than their nearby Champion outfit.

Sure there'd be an increase in shirt material costs but sometimes such investments pay dividends - such as winning/retaining trophies.

The point I am trying to make is this - if the players you bring in add something to the squad so be it but it must not be at the detriment to younger players. The idea of bringing in an Achurch and then sending him to Hunslet seems barmy to me - hardly adding anything? Surely we have sufficient youngsters of that standard. All he is doing is preventing a youngster getting that opportunity. On Vickery I have yet to see anything to suggest he is any better than Chisholm, but then Chisholm hasn't had the same opportunity at senior level to judge.

Carney would have taken up a large chunk of cap space, a quota spot and would presumably have wanted a guaranteed starting spot. This probably didn't tick any boxes as far as Leeds were concerned, when we already have 2 very capable first choice wingers.

Vickery, on the other hand, offers solid enough cover across our backline, and is here on a low risk, low value, non-quota filling 1 year deal. Emphasis on the word cover.

Who knows the size of the deal he's on at cash-strapped Castleford. The fact he's there suggests to me he's not on a huge wedge.

I presume he'd have wanted the chance to claim a starting spot and would have been looking to earn the right with no guarantees.

Do Leeds have cap or quota issues?



He's showed no threat in the wing position (unlike Carney), it's yet to be seen if he's got anything more to offer across the backline as cover.

So far the emphasis on the word cheap (low value didn't work for me as that's two words.)