Now you're getting carried away. You can't possibly evidence the claim that Buderus' influence won't have any long term impact on the young players, any more than Gotcha can evidence that it will. This is opinion country.

I'm often fond of finding analogies with my own life, and very early in my career I got a chance to work for a very experienced and wise Project Manager, who acted, unofficially as a mentor. Obviously in the years since I've learned my own lessons and picked up my own experience, but that time working with him probably shaped the way I approached the rest of my career. Can you really be sure the same isn't true of Liam Hood or Paul McShane?

I personally doubt we made a marquee signing specifically to develop a young player. That would be a bizarre model for youth development. But that doesn't mean Hood hasn't benefitted from working with Buderus. And, of course, with Lowes.

You or I will probably never know how much benefit he's got. Even he may not, given the impossibility of knowing how he would have developed had Buderus not been here.

In the interests of not taking sides in this squabble

If that wasn't what you meant, it most certainly is the impression you gave.

I have read it again. While it may not have been exactly what you meant, that remains the impression the post left me with. So I can understand Gareth's thinking that was your point.




OK.



Again, if you were not trying to assert that Buderus had clearly had an influence on Hood's development, then I apologise, but again, I doubt I would be alone in interpreting your post in that way.

Your last quote you took of me completely states what I said so don't understand why your first statement says I gave a different impression.

Anyway, again what I was dissagreeing with you on was this



I have not said that it will. I can form an opinion that it will (which I do have), but have not actually said that. I have said he was working with him, and the club strategy specifically from the start was for this to happen.

The comment you quoted was my response to another poster who said you can see the input Buderus has had on Hoods game.

Fine. Then I misunderstood your point. Your argument reads rather differently depending on who you're replying to, and uses of words like "fact" rather suggest that you have evidence.

So, in summary, and for the avoidance of further confusion:

Buderus has been working with Hood, and this was planned as part of Hood's development. This you can prove.

You believe (as I do) that this has benefitted Hood's development, but can't prove it?

Is that fair?

Fair enough.

In that case, my statement stands - that you can't prove that Buderus has influenced Hood's development. It's still true, it just now appears a little spurious since you weren't saying you could....

Have I wriggled out of this yet?

I no for a fact that DB has been working with Hood from the begining it was 1 of the incentives for him to come to us that he would get 1 to 1 sessions with both Diskin and Buderus

Thank you. I also know that fact too. Just because some people can not accept it, does not mean it is not a fact.

I personally don't know for a fact that DB has been working with hood, having no personally experience in this. I wouldn't say as some have that no one on hear knows because they might have the contacts. Without any proof personally I don't think it is a particulary big stretch to think that DB has been working with hood and McShane on their game. As I think some have said you do make your own mistakes and find your own way, but working with a rugby league great like buderus is hardly going to hinder the lads, can only really be a positive. He might not have been at his AUS best but still would have a positive influence on the youngsters

As has been pointed out by El Diablo, a reasoned, unbiased poster, that is not what you put and what you put was far from clear and is different in this post to what you put in your original posts.

I have no issue with what you've put in any posts other than you're attempting to dress up thoughts, ideas and opinions as facts. You're quite sanctimonious with it as well when challenged. Given you carry very little credibility following the Phil Daly fiasco (and I don't bring it up to score cheap points but to illustrate nobody should ever take anything you put as fact at face value) I'd have thought you would be a little more circumspect.

You then dismiss my challenge by saying the Leeds article supported your supposed fact. I linked to it, quoted it and it doesn't.

You now change what you intended to really say to something somewhat different to what you actually said.

Classic Gotcha.

remember, I'm out here watching. Feel free to post your opinions but if you dress them up as facts i am going to challenge them and I will usually be successful.

And if, i repeat, if you're all correct and Buderus has been a master guru and anything Hood or McShane every achieve in their careers is because of his mere presence then I suppose that will partly make up for the complete lack of achievement on the part of the 1st team during his tenure as a player.

However, I suspect this is all just his acolytes laying the foundation to further their agenda by claiming credit for him after he's gone should a junior whose progression he has blocked go on to become a successful 1st teamer like the junior who was ousted by his signing.

Indeed. I specifically agree with the 1st sentence of the quote.

However, our shared opinion flies in the face of Gotcha's alleged FACTS.

What's the phil daly fiasco?