If a player wants to leave which Buderus did there is no future keeping them regardless of contract - the club is no respecter of contracts so you can hardly expect the players to be different. Buderus didn't want to be at Leeds if he did he would never have asked for a release?

Webb;
BJB, Watkins, Hardaker, Hall;
Sinfield, McGuire;
Bailey, McShane / Hood, Peacock;
Ablett, Jones-Buchanan;
Clarkson.

Burrow, Griffin, Leuluai / Moore, Delaney.

I don't think Buderus wanted away from Leeds as such although he clearly wanted to take up an (unexpected?) opportunity when it arose in Newcastle.

Buderus said he appreciated the difficult position he was putting his employers in and that if a release was not possible he would honour his existing playing contract for 2012.

Do you think if Leeds had turned down the request the player would have given anything less than his usual 100% commitment?

Buderus was WORLD class, playing in the most important position in modern RL. Unfortunately we don't have a world class no.9 at the moment.

It wasn't that long ago he was a 'waste of money' for some, he was a huge part in our success last season.

Sinny to play 9 on friday for my money.

I'd go with:
Webb
BJB
Watkins
Hardaker
Hall
McGuire
Burrow
-----------
Griffin
Sinfield
Peacock
Jones Buchanan
Delaney
Ablett

Subs: McShane, Leuluai, Moore, Bailey
Maximum impact from the start, and big hitters from the bench, i think we should try Sinny at hooker because McShane for me isn't experienced enough to start and i think we need speed at half back.

I doubt he would have been the same player with Leeds as he will be with Newcastle - mentally I think he would have found the year at Leeds tough especially the training. I bet he is really up for the challenge at Newcastle

No doubt.

It doesn't detract from the fact that Leeds is a professional club not a charity. If it was considered McShane is not as good a prospect for 2012 as a half hearted, distracted Buderus then again I ask why let him go ? He did state he was ready to honour his contract.

Do you not consider it bad management in not finding an adequate replacement....or at least formulating a good enough contingency plan to compensate for his [i[ulong known[/u[/i departure ?? To be experimenting after all this time as to how to proceed is nothing short of a debacle. What was all the close season for ?

You can only sign what is available, maybe they thought he wasn't quite the loss he might turn out to be this is all conjecture maybe they were going to adapt the style of play to compensate?

Really ? You're telling me by starting Burrow as hooker (the apparent first contingency plan) they really thought Buderus wouldn't be quite the loss he might turn out to be ????

How exactly were they then thinking they might adapt the style of play to compensate by starting Burrow in this most important of all positions ?

I repeat it can only be described as bad management. How else can it be described ?

It was obvious Buderus would leave replacement acquired or not. What is also clear is that when it comes to signing players, the management of Leeds has an interesting definiton of "replacements"

There might be less of a stuff-up than some people are assuming. The season has only just started. Burrow by his own admission wants to start games (understandably). BM was probably looking at ways to improve things, and playing around with 9 at the start of the season is actually completely understandable given Buderus' departure. Putting Burrow in at starting hooker may not work, but if it doesn't it won't last - we'll see him off the bench again.

good luck for this weeks game. hope you don t lose by more than 50.


come on manly.