Could you please highlight, in any colour of your choosing, the promises that were made, and broken to young Pitts upon his signing?

TIA.

Gareth I am not getting involved in squabbles. Tvoc has highlighted the important bit for me, where McClennan stated they were to develop him with a view to seeing him as a prop. That hasn't happened. Correctly in my view.

Not once have I criticised the club with regards this, which you appear to be assuming I have. I have pointed out the circumstances of what McLennan said and did. Then pointed out the change of coach, who may well have a differen view to the last.

My only criticism was to posters saying Pitts was having a strop, which was I felt was silly, then looked at things from his point of view.

You specifically said the club had made him promises. I still don't see any. I'm just curious what those promises were, that's all.

Seriously Gareth? You don't think that a coach announcing something to the media of how he was going to develop a player, that he wouldn't have already discussed that with him before signing?

You don't think that as that new development was a different role from the player that they hadn't agreed on this before hand? There verbal agreement made, in other words promise.

As Jay Pitts become a prop? Has Jay Pitts played prop? Has Jay Pitts developed any differently to the day he signed? The answer to all is no. Therefore things have not happened as agreed on signing.

has he developed in bulk enough to be developed as a prop.

clarkson took his chance as a back rower, pitts hasn't

Sorry, I haven't read the articles in your links and am happy to accept that playing prop wasn't mentioned by anyone quoted in them but it was mentioned in the YEP article by coach McClennan, hence my intended to be helpful intervention.

Assuming Gotcha's proposition centres on Pitts being seen as and developed as a prop at Leeds it appears he has some ground to base that on.



You're not wrong and that remains the case.

McLennan says in your link that he sees Pitts as more of a prop than a 2nd rower. All the articles talk abiut him earning a 1st team place. I still fail to see what promises were made that have been broken. As the brain trust of gotcha and exhale can't expand upn the proposition perhaps you can explain how mclennan"s comments amount to a promise from the club.

Sorry but are you now using semantics in a discussion with Gotcha and Nantwich?

I'm trying to be specific. In case you haven't read back, on page 2 Gotcha said "I am blaming the promises made to the lad".

On page 4 I asked

"Gotcha, specifically who made what promises to Pitts and how are you privvy to those promises?"

If you could direct me to where that has been answered, either by Gotcha or by the quote from the YEP you've provided, I would be grateful. A comment that the then coach saw him as more of a prop than a 2nd rower, hardly amounts to a promise, would you agree?

Hasn't Gotcha clarified his earlier statements when he said on page 5

The language may have been inprecise but the basic point appeared to be an apparent intention to develope Pitts in to the prop position as outlined by the then head coach which has for whatever reason not exactly born much fruit.

If you care to answer the questions Gotcha posed in that post above you'll see that on the face of it he may have a point.

I entirely agree that the general promise statement was and remains unsubstantiated but as it's effectively been withdrawn we should be able to move on.

You asked for evidence of 'a prop comment' (I suspect that was because you couldn't recall one and hoped it hadn't actually happened) but Gotcha was right in that it had. No-one's still banging on about it now - excluding this part of the post.

This is like Haye v Chisora, only with longer words and less spit.

And one less tripod.

TVOC just tell G1 he's right...it's obviously important to him. We can all draw our own conclusions as to who is worth respecting

prop or second row, the lads simply not good enough