I'm very chilled out, I've simply asked a question 'what do you think you're achieving by spreading the details of meetings' around?

You've deflected away from answering this which is quite telling.

Achieving by pointing out the player may well leave because of the initial offer he received, and his agent pushing him to listen to other offers. You know, exactly what happened.

What are you trying to achieve in stating the club have to defend themselves? You seem to have deflected away from this and the question of against what?

This is a message board for discussion amongst fans. If all you want to do is here about club announcements, then that is easily done by just looking at the clubs webpage. But not everything will be posted on there. On here people discuss things that will and won't be on there. I just can't see why someone would be on here if going to take an offence to it. You add your own views to many posts, so why take offence to others?

And the player would've still have left regardless of your rumours, so all you did was force Leeds to tell their side of the story and now you're slamming them?

I don't mind if someone tells rumours and doesn't give a dann about the consequences, but you turning around and crying foul about Leeds' response is hypocritical.

What do you think would happen if you're out there spreading stories that portray them in a bad light?

You as a chief rumour spreader is as much to blame for how things have panned out? How can you not see that? You keep your mouth shut and this could've stayed in house at the club,.

But being in the know was more important to you so don't cry foul about the response.

Am I really that so important that not only are people on here obsessed with me, but now the actual club will only respond to what I say? Is that really true . Do you not realise how ridiculous this sounds?

I am going to ask again, what were the rumours posted before that announcement that made them have to come out with a public announcement?

Have you actually read the announcement? All written by the Leeds club, but yet the last statement says it all. "I want to stay at Leeds, but I owe it to myself to listen to all offers". That is what was said, backed up by Leeds. This after these do called damaging "rumours" you are saying happened. Leeds made a revised offer in a second meeting, as confirmed in their own announcement. So again how did so called "rumours" mean he would have left anyway, even before this second meeting?

I am been clear here, there was nothing said before that announcement that was in anyway damaging on the Leeds club, none at all. But again I ask you, and for a third time, if you really think that then show what they were, and you will have my apology.

You have taken a thread about Ashton Golding, and defending the lad, and made into something else on an argument that simply makes no sense.

I'll hold my hands up and say yes I will post what I hear or told if it makes you feel better. But spinning it anyway you like here, there is absolutely nothing you can put as inaccurate at all with this at my door.

Can someone call the English language police please.

Oh troll boy confirming the point . Must be true then. Take it back then Printer.

I am going to start with your last point, so no confusion. I agree with you here, no arguments from me. I think it is a valid point. I don't think it makes any difference, and if Jack comes back next month they would bring the contract and pen out, but regardless the point is still correct.

That sorted. Again, is this four times now, what were these so called "rumours" that meant the club had to make an official announcement? An announcement made only after a second offer made, which was later than the so called "rumours". What are they defending themselves on? Because there is nothing in that announcement that defends themselves from the so called "rumours" you state I made before that announcement, they actually confirm them.

What are they defending themselves on? I don't know maybe rumours spread by your type that ALWAYS portray them as bullies and unfair tw*ts in negotiations.

Do you honestly think you don't portray them in an awful light? Because I'll tell you now you do, you make them sound like the most cold hearted b@stards each and every time. It was embarrassing every time Hardaker f*ckef up and you came running on here to say the club has let him down with their response, You might has well have worn a I ❤️ Zak tshirt

It is no surprise that those who regularly watch the junior teams play will mingle on the touch line with members of the player's families. As such they will get to hear a one sided version of the 'unfairness' of how the apple of their eye is being treated, be it selection or non selection, lack of coaching and even confidential contract discussions.

While some of this touchline/bar room comment may well be true it should be accepted that the source will have a strong emotional bias who only wishes to pass on information that shows the club in a poor light if things are not going well for the off spring.

Basically it is a basic employer v employee situation but in sport it is very difficult for the club to satisfy all their young players individual demands as the club has has to take into account how a special deal for one player impacts on the others in the team, because first and foremost it is the overall team that is the most important thing to keep happy.

Walker is an outstanding prospect but even so has to accept that he has to be part of a team with all that that implies. The club have another fine young fullback in Golding who has made a very good start and will only become better especially as he has already shown great respect to the club and very mature professional attitude.

So really it is exactly as I said, you don't really believe what you put. You have changed course on this argument so many times now in just a few posts. The club put out it's statement to force his agent to change course, and nothing more. In doing so they hung the lad out to dry and put undue spotlight on an other player, nothing more. There was nothing out there before that announcement other than the fact an initial derisory offer was made and wouldn't be accepted. This confirmed in the club statement in pointing out it's new offer.

The club could simply have said, and quite rightly, if they wanted to put out an announcement "having made a final offer to Jack Walker the club have reluctantly accepted that it could not meet the terms requested. The club have offered an excellent deal for someone so young, a deal that we feel meets our faith in the player to progress. Unfortunately, Jack has requested terms that can not be guaranteed by the club, and has a desire to listen to offers from other cubs. We have a duty to plan our squad and budgets for next year and can not wait for an answer whilst this takes place, so we move on"

They could even had the more realistic "In an effort to appease our most gullible and worshipping supporters, we felt it best to announce this so we are not held in any fault when any player chooses to play elsewhere, and therefore we would like them to spin this into nothing but praise"

Let's be honest here mate, the club could behead your grand parents and pee down their necks, and you would still make out your grand parents deserved it.

Isn't that the very reason the Walker is going - rightly or wrongly he sees Golding as the preferred choice in a position he sees as his best opportunity to make a career out of professional RL.

Luke Gale is probably the best player in SL but he would never have got a chance at Leeds because no matter how good he was he was never going to replace one of McGuire, Burrow or Sinfield. Sometimes timing plays an important part of whether a player gets the opportunity or not.

Flip your last paragraph around, thats your take on the people in charge