Not really but if the coach's deem them good enough and are willing to play them what's the problem??
I would of loved eastwood to come and scruton to stay but it didn't happen,but that doesn't mean we should panic and sign more player's without using our squad.
I understand what you and other's are saying but don't you think we should trust these youngster's???
As GH has already stated we have money available for the right player so i don't see the reason to panic.
A lot seems to rest on IF'S and BUT'S and any squad would struggle if it was deprived of 3/4 of it's quality player's for a sustained length of time but let's just see what happen's before declaring the world over and the demise of our great club and team.

I'd be surprised if the funding for major capital projects was coming out of operating income. A bigger issue for the stadium redevelopment is likely to be the unwillingness of financial institutions to lend money at anything like reasonable interest rates at the minute.

None.

However, earlier in the thread the posters craving new signings were talking about our ability to simply go out and get contracted players. They were talking about transfer fees.

I would imagine GH has never spent up to the full cap. He has very wisely given himself plenty of wiggle room.

However, there's no doubt the South Stand has to be re-built. That will have to be financed.

I'd also imagine our income will drop this year as will everyone else's.

Wit that in mind its' not unreasonable to say that depth for the squad must come from the junior ranks which has provided so well for us.

The quest for a 3rd championship is great but not at the expense of the financial stability of the club. We tried that in the 1990's.

Funny, I must have missed those two championships in the early 90s But point taken.

Interesting that you and Gilder differ over whether expenditure on the salary cap should be affected by the stadium build.

I agree that it is good to have some wiggle room with the cap but if it means Leeds are 1-2 players short in positions in which youngsters aren't coming through then it is a concern. I suspect if Eastwood had come this season as planned he would have been spelled at prop given his size; perhaps if he does come next year it will be one less body in the pack to worry about.

It will have an impact, primarily because if money needs to be borrowed to fund redevelopment then the repayments on that loan will need to be factored into your running costs for the next however many years it will run for.

What you won't see however is running costs being reduced to save up money to redevelop the ground. With costs likely to run into seven figures you can't generate that kind of savings by reducing your running costs, it will have to come from capital investment either in the form of loans or grants.

Why bother with loans and grants, just get Carnegie to pay for it like normal

From a fans point of view (rather than a bank managers) why was it wise to spend less money than he was permitted to?

Could that underspend partly explain why Leeds have not won a Challenge Cup for nine seasons or as many Championships as they might have given the nucleus of the team was home grown and a major advantage over their rivals?

Never-the-less Greg Eastwood was signed but now isn't coming in this year as had been planned.

If he was needed by Leeds what has altered since his Visa was refused that makes a replacement not necessary afterall?

Which youngster has emerged to fill his ample shorts?

Or did they get it wrong in the first place and Eastwood was never required?

Eastwood was needed. Probably still is. He isn't here because of circumstances beyond the clubs' control.

So the question is, having procured an young NRL regular and full international should the club sign someone else now he is not available and, if so who? If its' not the cream of the crop, like Eastwood can whoever they bring in do a better job than what they already have?

I'd guess the club have weighed up the options, considered who is available and decided not to make a move.

By prudently not spending up to the full cap they will be in a position to make a move should the right player become available later in the season, like Lauitiiti did in the year we won our first championship for 32 years.

Now, about those games JP played in the 2nd row.............

There you go it wasn't that difficult.



Peacock started eleven games in the second row in 2008. It was generally acknowledged even when he did that his role still took him right up the guts of the defence with Leeds operating with three props in the opening twenty. At first interchange they reverted to the traditional two props with a lesser light such as Worrall coming in out wide.

There is an issue with replacing Eastwood in that he is of a level of ability that hard to match when matched with other boxes he can tick, such as his age, experience and his potential for citizenship. We are left in limbo, becuase he may be here next year. So, we can't go and buy a replacement for him, or we will be overloaded in the 2nd row if we sign 2 players in under a year when we already have a strong group of players there.

It goes without saying that if we lost peacock for a long time, we would struggle this year, but even with Eastwood or an equivalent you would miss his presence and go-forward.

The reason that the Southstand is linked to not buying an in contract is to do with a transfer fee, rather than ability to fit him within the cap.

Its a tricky situation to manage. the best way I can see it going is to buy a player who can cover second row, and either prop or centre, to allow better coverage of positions, and allow us to reveiw the situation when we know more about Eastwoods visa.

the question is that quality players, available mid-season with required versatility are not that frequent, and its essential we get the right player for the team

"generally acknowledged".

Straying a little from your comfort zone there old bean.

I think you need to revise your earlier post. Unless you're saying Peacock played 42 games for Leeds he did not play 31 games at prop.

Tut tut.

If we're going to start getting into generally acknowledged and positional changes during games look at where players line up at scrums. Is Burrow a centre? Lauitiiti often takes drives close to the ruck. maybe you should add him to our list of props for this year?

Last year we had a real crisis in the centre and back row. As a result Scruton (who was dropped after round 1, IIRC and wasn't considered a fixture at prop by any means as the season began) emerged for the first time as a mainstay of the front row whilst Peacock went back in time and played a large proportion of games in the back row.

Peacock going back to the front row permanently and the further increase in game time for Burgess easily off-set the loss of Scruton.

Then, of course, we appear to have found a gem in 2nd rower Carl Ablett who has been released to his natural position thanks to the emergence of two players in the centres who barely contributed last year, Watkins and Gibson.

Arguably, we have MORE depth this year, even without Eastwood.

Leeds 1 to 17 was already at least one player light pre-season and now the Eastwood no-show has magnified the problem. The Champions failed with their close season recruitment and so it definitely makes the job harder to rectify now but whose fault is that?

3 - Toopi
12 - Ellis
17 - Scruton

Replaced by Buderus