I'd go along with this, just as long as it's done with a bit of planning and not as some sort of knee-jerk response to some short-term drop off in results and form. Although I have to say that GH strikes me as one of the least likely men in the game to give in to that kind of impulse.

I think you are right re- GH, certainly been proved in recent times. However, he has had the luxury of having a quality set of settled players in place and as much as us fans would have liked to have seen some changes here or there he has been proved right with silverware on tap for a good decade now, and that has kept the fans in the most part happy. Finishing outside the top 4 last year,the early play off exit and his team missing out on the expanded concept of the WC series that he helped set up will surely have set the alarm bells ringing despite his 'greatest squad' claims. 50% of our pack goes when JP hangs up his boots too, everyone knows that. We are already hard pressed to remain a member of the big 4 with him in the team.It is surely a no brainer to think we need to look at marquee signings and he has no excuses from now on as he has the time to scour the market and get in on the big names who will be available. As i say, interesting times ahead.

But he has done it in the past, resigning Lee Smith from Wasps come to mind.
But I agree it's not a regular occurrence.
I think it's impossible to see any marquee signing coming from the NRL.

I guess it depends on how one defines marquee. Cuthbertson might not meet that definition in the eyes of many but from what I've seen he has the hallmarks of being a bloody useful signing. So, while we may not get an Ali, a Webb or a Buderus it may not be all doom and gloom in terms of what we can bring in from down under.

Maybe we shouldn't be looking so far for recruits - Daryl Clark would have been every bit a good signing as anything that would have come from the NRL.

I don't disagree but GH won't either break the bank, bust the salary cap nor upset his salary structure to do that.
Hence his laudable aim to develop in-house & promote from within but unfortunately that's not always feasible.
His loyalty to those players who reciprocate may also be and arguably has been a stumbling block.

It should never be overlooked GH is in the entertainment business and fans want to see stars especially at big clubs. You only have to look over the north stand to see that. YCC are equally good at promoting/developing young talent but they know that is not enough on its own. They have a combination of top overseas talent e.g Starc, Finch and now Maxwell and top home grown players such as Plunkett.

Leeds haven't signed a top player since Buderus, that isn't good enough for an elite club with a team that is quite clearly in decline. The fact that they will be well under the cap is also a worry, it suggests a potential downward spiral if matters are not addressed in the near future.

Interesting point. We are in a business. That much is certain, we have to balance books.
We are in the entertainment business. That is also true. But we are also in the results business. In entertainment terms the last few years has been pretty low by recent standards. However, the success on the pitch has been high.

I think there is a balance to be made. An entertaining team that wins nothing is not a good team. At the other end of the scale are teams who win everything but with no style. Leeds are more towards this end of the spectrum, and its the better end to be at.

In business terms its better to have a team which is successful, as you attract more casual fans, and many fans can't tell the difference between a good game and not anyway.

For me, mistakes have been made with some players being retained too long, but that has started to be addressed, with Bailey and Kirke moving on. JJB, Peacock, Sinfield, McGuire, Kylie should be assessed as the season goes on. THe thing we know about GH is that he plays the long game. Loyalty in the squad, from players who want to play for Leeds. This is his biggest challenge in maintaining that whilst bringing in the new team of the future

It's also better commercially to be successful rather than entertaining, if you have to choose one or the other.

Successful gets you to more finals. It gets you more prize money, more merchandising opportunities, more exposure to potential sponsors. Leeds can pitch to potential new sponsors on the basis of getting their logo out there on the big occasions, on national television at Wembley for example.

Playing entertaining rugby doesn't necessarily get you any of those.

Just a thought (based on some of you pointing out GH's 'long game' approach, the 'below salary cap' position and the 'loyalty to long-termers'. Might this be some sort of trade-off at some level? I'm not sure whether it would openly be discussed between GH and the relevant players / their agents but might there be some discussion along the lines of 'you won't get top-dollar wages here; we will pay less than you could get somewhere else. However, we will also be more loyal and recognise your loyalty; if we feel you still offer something to the team (even if you aren't quite as good as the year before) we will look to keep you on.'

Seems funny them being so far under the cap, with so many (fading, yes) big players in the squad. I wonder if that is merely part of what they put forward to players - would you rather get a £25000 job with little prospect of a wage increase, but more long term security, or a £35000 job that is more short term and you might then have to take a massive cut, or scrabble around for whatever you can get afterwards..?

Do we know with any certainty how far below the salary cap the Rhinos are?
I doubt it.
We're all making assumptions without knowing the true facts.

2005 we were incredibly entertaining. We got to two finals. We might not have won anything, but we got two finals and therefore gave the sponsors that coverage, and we had record crowds because we were so entertaining.