Errrr...... Yep! Exactly that.

Phew! For a minute there I was worried I wasn't making sense.

It says... "You can Loan our players, but they can't play against us."

Am I missing something here? You're making it out like that's a totally ludicrous suggestion?! I think it's perfectly reasonable.

It's not very sporting though, is it?

It's a backdoor way of weakening Wakey, and gives Leeds an unfair advantage (of sorts )

The other way of looking at it, is they should allow him to play, as he's probably spent enough time with the Leeds players for them to know his weaknesses - Maybe it actually works in our favour?

As others have said, if he's not good enough for the Leeds first team, why should we be worried about facing him?

My god you lot are insecure, get a grip. Do you really think that whatever slim chance Trinity have of turning you over has anything to do with whether Amor plays or not! He's only played a few times for us and his first decent effort was against Hull. Paul King is a far bigger loss for us, our best prop by a mile.

If you lose to us and try to use Amor's inclusion as an excuse then I feel whatever credibility Leeds fans have left will be lost.

Nothing to do with insecurity. Nothing to do with how good Amor is/isn't. And it's certainly nothing to do with Paul King!? ( )

He's our player, and even if it only gives you 0.1% more of an advantage, it's 0.1% of an advantage that you simply do not need to have.

I feel your pain.

Hopefully Lee's hamstring will have cleared up enough (that's if G1 hasn't eaten it) to get him back out on the pitch where his enthusiasm has been sorely missed.




Not only is it perfectly reasonable it's a clause that other SL clubs have inserted and invoked in loan agreements in the recent past, IIRC.

That said I've never particularly agreed with them doing so and still wouldn't in this case.

When I started watching Leeds and for many years after, players who Leeds couldn't get a decent game out of for years would go to other clubs and produce the goods against us (maybe nobody else, but definately against us). The last decade or so it's been the other way around, and Leeds got the best out of players and other clubs got scraps.
Are we really getting back to the days when a player we sign over a year ago who can't get a game at Leeds despite our worst injury period in recent memory, is going to actually perform like a World beater against us and send us crashing to defeat? Is that where we are? Unable to get even a half decent display from players unless they are playing against us?

That is a massive issue for you guys in itself.

Forget Amor, and forget how good he is/isn't, and forget whether or not he'd get into the Leeds team, and forget the GAME of Rugby in general.

Leeds Rugby Ltd is a business. A business' sole purpose is to make money.

Imagine for a second that you run a company supplying Teddy Bears. You're doing pretty well, winning the prestigious "Teddy Manufacturer of the Year" award for 3 years in a row! Anyway, you're massively overstaffed, but don't really want to sack someone cos Jim is close to retirement.

The Teddy Bear company down the road (who's not doing so well, and are about to have to close down!) says... "We're really short staffed, and struggling to fulfil orders can we borrow Mark, and not only will we pay his wage, we'll also give you a bit of cash to say thanks!". You'd think to yourself, well, Mark is only really sweeping the floors here, it would be good if he got to actually make a few Teddies before Jim retires, and the cash would help! Sure... off you go Mark!.

Then... Disney call... It's a big order!! "We need a company who's able to supply us with 10,000 Teddies."

Now, as a businessman, you know the little factory down the road cannot possibly even begin to compete with you to win that order, after all, you won "Teddy Manufacturer of the Year" in '07, '08 & '09, and they've won nothing!

BUT...

What if, even though you're bigger, and better, and still had the capability to supply the 10,000 teddies, during the production a machine gets a fault, then you have a power cut, and Jim's dog dies so his mind isn't on the job, then the van gets a flat tyre, and the stuffing you've ordered isn't what it was supposed to be and through no real fault of your own the rival company wins the Disney contract.

Would Mark have made any difference to any of that? No, he wouldn't have fixed the machine, or stopped a power cut, or saved Jim's dog, or repaired the tyre, in fact, he'd probably be still just sweeping your floors, but because they had that extra pair of hands that just made them that little bit more able to compete. Just having what you considered "only a floor sweeper" to help them pack a few boxes, meant the could just about muster the 10,000 teddies together in time to compete with your big arrogant corporation. Gutted.

You know full well I meant Matty & not Lee!! But I'll give you that one.

Just in case the Rugby God's are reading this... I heard that Lee Smith said all Rugby Gods' are wan*ers, and that he'd had all their mums, and that they were all crap.

A lovely story and everything, but it's Kyle Amor. Have you lost sight of what we're talking about here?? Kyle Amor. It's hardly a season defining decision. Let him play. We're talking about people here as well as businesses and teams. To deny Amor the opportunity to play in what is probably a big game for him would be petty, just on the basis that we're nervous about whether we're good enough to beat Wakefield.

Oh I know, and I agree in the most part, and I'm sure you're right, and this isn't about "Amor" as I've said before.

I just don't think it matters who it is, there should be a blanket non-competition clause in all loan agreements.

I am sure people will put me straight but with the loan system I think players cannot be recalled within the first month. If we did as suggested and called him back then re loan him the following week would the month no recall start again?