It sounds sh*tty us saying it because of what mcguire has done for us over the years and the service he has given, but this is the reality. It's the old saying 'no room for sentiment in sport'. Everything mcguire offers is offered by a combination of other players in the team. It's getting to the stage where, because of the dynamics of the team and the players coming in, it's going to be to the detriment of the team long term to keep him in.

Plus Mcguire, sinfield and burrow are all of similiar age and to have to replace them all at once would be gross mis-management. We can still squeeze some more years out of burrow and sinfield, so if mcguire moves on in the near future it will allow us to gradually evolve the team rather than having to replace a bunch of stalwarts all at once.

I don't know if McDermott has the cojones to..........but Hetherington sure as hell does.

Mcguire doesn't need to move on, but he should be down the pecking order, if he moves on as a result then fair enough but I don't think he justifies his position any more. A reasonable kicking game is all he really brings the days

You don't think he needs to move on but you don't think he justifies his position. Mcguire wil be in the higher echelon of earners at leeds. I don't think you can justify having a player like that as bit part when theres a salary cap. It would never be the case. As long as mcguire is on leeds books he will be first choice.

I think we wouldn't get rid of him over the of season, but I would expect by this time next year he wouldn't be in the first 17. It may be that he moves on, or that he accepts his place. If he's out of contact any time soon be may move on but you wouldn't play him because he is paid a fair amount. That just compounds the problem

McGuire is clearly struggling to get back to full fitness and has probably returned too soon like some other players just because we have reached playoff time. Despite that I think it would be wrong to write off his future at Leeds. When fit he creates space for our threequarters that they dont always receive when he's missing. I would agree that he appears to be more injury prone than Sinfield and burrow and he may finish earlier than those two but I hope he still has a few years yet.

word going round our way, wakey are using us to drive kirmond's price up with a couple other clubs that are noseying.

Kirmond and Aiton are heading to Leeds aren't they? In exchange for Moore, Clarkson, Kirke plus cash. A pillow-talk done deal?

I'll make no secret of the fact that I am a fan of Burrow. McGuire has given great service but he and Sinfield lack any real pace and it should be one of those two that eventually make way for Sutcliffe and or Ward, before Burrow does.

Burrow has retained his place and remains capable of providing that x-factor even in games we're being dominated (see last Saturday)and even in games where we're not playing well. He also has the dummy half versatility.

Add in Sifnield's captaincy, goal kicking and ability to cover 9 and it does, sadly, leave McGuire the odd man out. That said, and whisper it quietly, but I think Sinfield has had a pretty poor season and, like McGuire, father time looks like he may be catching up.

I doubt the coach sees it that wa though.

That would bring back some memories of another multiple Leeds - Wakefield swap-shop deal from 1987 or thereabouts. Throw in another makeweight from this end and it'd be a carbon copy.

Would be disappointed to lose Clarkson and I think Kirmond is getting a little over-rated, he has somehow gone from a hardworking 2nd rower to the second coming of Gordon Tallis on the back of a couple of good seasons in a mid-table side. Decent player but nowhere near the game-changer he is being made out to be.

Also when he was Clarksons age, he was far behind where Clarkson is now.

On moving Mcguire on, lets be honest Sutcliffe is very very young for a half back and he is our half-back for the next 15 years, not the next 3. He shouldn’t be playing more than 15-20 games next year and we shouldn’t be looking to put him in for 80 mins in all of those games. He covers Mcguire next year, shares the spot with him the year after, and takes the starters job in the season he turns 21 with 40-50 apps behind him. I would much rather he gets another year focussing on his skills than pushing him into a first team role which demands he spend more time building his fitness so he can cope at SL level.

Leeds got Gary Spencer and John Lyons? from Wakey in exchange for Mark Conway, Phil Fox, Andy Mason and one of the Rayne twins.

The other makeweight? McShane.

I've said before that there aren't many top-class half-backs who can continue to operate at a reasonable level beyond 32, and sometimes quite a bit earlier. Darren Lockyer is an exception to this but Andrew Johns, Stacey Jones, Brad Fittler, Sean Long, Iestyn Harris were all finished or massively reduced by that age. A generation back and Edwards, Gregory, Schofield, Daley, Lewis, Sterling were too.

Keith Rayne, I think.

Unless Danny Kirmond is actually a three-toed sloth with a bucket attached to its body then the deal is not comparable. The form of Gary Spencer pushing Andrew Ettingshausen out to the wing is still one of the all-time amazing Leeds decisions.

When ET came over (second stint) he wasn't fit at first. Probably shouldn't have even played on the wing to start with. His display in the Yorkshire Cup Final was poor.

However,once fit, there was no doubt who would play.

Spencer was a great full back but,sadly, the Paul Wellens of his day, perhaps slower. Still in great shape and could probably play now.

Spencer did have all the attributes to be a great full back, except one. To be fair, like Wellens it shows how good he was at other aspects of play that he could forge out a career in that position when he was that slow. But. boy, was he slow even in an era when Ian Wilkinson and Paul Gill played 1. No fancy Billy Slaters in them days.