I find this rugby players should be different from the rest of us thought strange.

These are young lads with the same mentality as most young lads out in the workplace - they are motivated by three things:

Career - well these guys are at the top of the tree by the time they are 21/22 - so that isn't quite the same motivation. Eastwood has played in the world's top competition for the biggest club in the world, he has represented his country and he has won a world cup all by the age of 22/23 - what more is there for him to achieve career wise? more world cups been there done that.

Money - something that Eastwood has aptly demonstrated. At least when he is on the field he gives it 100%

Women - I have no doubt there are an endless supply of Yorkshire groupie-types should he need them

"Sporting world reels as star player reveals 'we love earning good money'"

I think the squad is plenty strong enough and for what it worth I think the issues are not in the forwards or the defence - so whilst Kirke getting a game is puzzling to me picking Pitts instead would not have had an impact on the results IMO.

Whilst the performances have been disappointing they have not been catastrophic - we very nearly lost at Wakey last year.

Pitts could not get a regular game at wakey - such was his standing at the club - he had been eclipsed by Ferguson and really had no chance of selection if he stayed - so his chances at Leeds will be limited. No clubs let their very best youngsters go without a big fee - the fact that Wakey let Pitts go says all you need to know

Burgess had the opportunity but he blew it big style and will now have to wait his chance - he made Kirke look good that is how bad he was.

We expect the players to view things in a way we do - maybe to the players view the WCC is an unnecessary diversion - hence the need for some incentive - this is a long season; these are very experienced players who know when to peak.

And the rest probably. The man's a legend.

David, the results are not the issue as far as I am concerned, I don't how you read that from my post. What is an issue is performance, and inparticular the performances of some of the players.

My question was, with such a game coming up and with the prize money on offer (as heard today), I would have expected the players to have been busting a gut to get to play in that game, considering IMO the squad strength available. What we have seen is completely the oppossite and I therefore raised the question that players appear to be guaranteed spots regardless of their form.

You like previous posters have basically confirmed that question that players are guaranteed their position. Personally I don't like that, and am a strong believer that players should earn their spot, which in several cases I don't think they are doing this season yet.

The rest of your post I entirely dissagree with and therefore won't bother arguing about it.

Which players have not been 'busting a gut' or in my terms of reference, not giving 100%?

There has been an issue of timing, form and performance but I didn't realise it was down to a lack of effort from the players on the pitch.

Amen, brother.

None of the players have been "busting a gut" although JJB comes pretty close.

However, accepted I used a wrong choice of words. By "busting a gut" I meant on top of their game, which is what you alluded to in your second sentence.

Forgetting all about the WCC, and assuming we had another normal game this weekend, do you believe that all the players who played last week (whom were the same that played the week before) would be deserving of their spot this week? If anybody does, then I can not accept that you believe we have a strong squad.

The bonus does NOT count on the cap. Operational Rules part 5 Section E1 See Section 5C 5.7.1 It's a very good reference document. www.therfl.co.uk/about/page.php?id=161&areaid=44

The bonus does NOT count on the cap. Operational Rules part 5 Section E1 See Section 5C 5.7.1 It's a very good reference document. www.therfl.co.uk/about/page.php?id=161&areaid=44

Its an interesting exception that, doesn't really sit with the idea that the salary cap is used to level out the competition.

A £100k contract at Leeds or St Helens over the last 6 years must have been worth significantly more than a £100k contract at castleford or even Wigan

IIRC though, don't bonuses paid for being selected for the GB squad count in the cap? This is what Bradford and Wigan claimed pushed them over the cap limit a couple of season back I think.

Don't know about them but it was the excuse given by St Helens one year for a minor breach after Ade Gardner somehow managed to get himself a mid season International cap.



If winning trophies is a method of getting round the cap I wonder why everyone doesn't do it.