I think we were obviously saving space in our cap for other potential signings which seem to have fallen through and he was offered more money and a longer deal by Bradford...

leeds weren't at full crap last year, this year they have an extra 50K to spend onto of the normal crap (the 10 years at a club rule). couple of signing really going to use all that up, when we were already losing two big money earners?

as i've said in my edit, burgess isn't/shouldn't have been a straight replacement.

as you have said, and was reported in the press at the time, he apparently was only offered a year contract, what were leeds thinking? IMO someone fooked up badly

we have two props nearing the end of their playing career, a young lad that isn't good enough / consistent enough yet.....i know, lets let one of our best props from last year go

Once out of contract, we have no more right to him than anyone else.

it's not so much a case of letting him go, but someone else thinking he's worth more to them, than we think he is worth to us.

So we should of matched the deal bradford offered and broke the wage structure that's help keep the club solvent and build a squad capable of competeting every year????
Scruton left for the money and there was no way he was gonna that deal within our structure.
The eastwood deal falling through has hit harder than a lot predicted(me included) but even having him here,a new centre and retaining scruton on a contract he didn't warrant wouldn't of made a difference to a squad so low on form and confidence.
This current squad is good enough to win the GF imo but at this moment in time it's not happening for a number of reason's and i'm sure the coach's and the player's will put that right,if the chance arise's to sign quality i'm sure GH will do so.
It's frustrating and painfull to see this squad play how they are at the moment but it's what we are stuck with and i'm sure we can come out of it.

how do you know it would have broke the wage structure. only reported as been that leeds only offered him a year deal, bulls offered him 3 (irc).

scruton was one top props everyweek, so the rest of the props where either crap, or you're wrong and he did indeed deserve a upgraded contract. (going that i guess he was on a fairly small contract, with the in and out of the team with injuries in past years)

it may well be, but its not good enough not to turn up and still win. this hasn't been the case in the pass. a few years ago a poor leeds game normally meant we only won by 10, now its an easy defeat. so if we're not careful we're going to end up 3rd/4th/5th in the league, not a great way to go about winning. if we're really not carefull, we're going to turn into wigan, average all year and then have a good run at the end of the year....just look at how well thats turned out for them

if you really think eastwood and a new centre would make no change...then surely you've got to be question what the coach is doing, why are we so clueless in attack atm, why aren't players interested in doing the hard work, why are we supporting players. What was his planning (if any) for the year. GH may do the money dealing, but mcclennan is the man to tell GH the position that needs filling, what players to be looking at, how much we need them, a range (in contract figures) as to how good he thinks he is, etc

These are question's that always arise when a team is in poor form and low on confidence,don't forget this is still a squad full of quality and skill and i'm sure the coach's and player's will put it right.
As for the planning issue do you not think thing's are ongoing behind the scene's??
Then the other thing to consider was the concious decision made in pre-season for a slow build up because of the world cup/injuries!!
This imo has had a major impact and maybe the gamble has yet to pay off.

GH is (or should be) the money man, not the contract length man. again mcclennan should be telling GH whether he's in our long/short term plans.

if he wasn't in our long term plans, where's his replacement ? where's the short term stand in (for him or in the same role burgess was given last year)
which becomes a problem, when our coach is looking more and more like a big game coach, not a day to day man.

indeed it is an on going things, but 2 signing, 1 who didn't even make it. when we were losing 5/6 regular first teamers (includging anselme). stinks of poor planning last year/this off season, especially when we didn't have the biggest of squads last year.

other teams don't seem to have an issue, but as you said that's one we'll have to wait n see for.

Scruton was offered a new deal but chose to take the much more lucrative one one offer at the Bulls.

I think the recruitment has been disrupted big time with the new visa system and with hmrc looking at the "image right's" plus the current strength of the £ to the $ oversea's signing's are less likely to occur.

I honestly don't know the full involvement bluey has re-contract lengths i'd guess very little as GH is the CEO who from the outside looking in decide's on those issues.
Whilst our coach is being questioned at this moment in time his staff have been around a long time and i'm sure they are all well aware what needs to happen to turn this around so if it is just down to bluey i'd expect the staff and player's to point that out.
I've no doubt we could go sign 3/4 player's tomorrow wether they'd be the right quality at the right price is a different story!!
All we can do is continue to support the lads and take the rough with the smooth afterall it's not like we haven't been here(and worse) before.

so we can only look overseas?

he should have the major role in it, after he's the boss of the team. its mcclennan who's going to get fired if the team fails not GH. GH is (should) be there to let mcclennan know how much money we have to spend, then try get the players (that mcclennan/coaching staff tells him) one the least amount of money under what mcclennan thinks he's worth to the team.

submitting error

submitting error