Quote: altofts wildcat "I would hardly call Elima a reject. We wanted to keep him but he wanted to go back to France and as per usual they offered him more money. I never have rated Winterstein and I still don't. As for Leeano, he did ok for us because he was something different and we wanted to keep him but by all accounts he asked for a stupid amount of money. So out of the 3 you mentioned, only Winterstein is a reject and rightly so IMO.'" I would have sold my soul to have those 3 come off the bench after 20 minutes play!!! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Leaeno BTW it wasn't me!

Quote: altofts wildcat "I would hardly call Elima a reject. We wanted to keep him but he wanted to go back to France and as per usual they offered him more money. I never have rated Winterstein and I still don't. As for Leeano, he did ok for us because he was something different and we wanted to keep him but by all accounts he asked for a stupid amount of money. So out of the 3 you mentioned, only Winterstein is a reject and rightly so IMO.'" I would have sold my soul to have those 3 come off the bench after 20 minutes play!!! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Leaeno BTW it wasn't me!

Someone had to do it!

Unfortunately red faced fan its impossible to come on here without being patched by the pack of wolves that lurk.

How so. People are not selling them above face value they are just transferring to someone else - again they have paid for the tickets - you have a very strange idea of touting.

Am I angry for questioning a plainly wrong comment. You really are a cheap and pointless individual, and I say that in a calm and considered manner.

So what did you expect on a forum exactly

Your first post was pretty much ok (not saying I agree) on all points bar that one, to have it corrected is not the end of the world is it.

You having a bad day Vasty? Don't get drawn in mate.
Can we all send a veritual hug to Vasty please?

Anyway, on the question of Kear rejects.
Elima was great, but the French wanted him and we had a lot of cover in that position. Did his international profile a lot of good being in France.
Charlie, was good to a point but no massive loss.
Winterstein came on a trial and didn't pass. Simple as that. We have better in the team now.

So I can't see the point on that one

Did Kear 'get rid of' Elima? As I remember he was the player he is now and I don't think the decision, whoever made it, was seen as such a bad thing. Some saw him as a penalty machine and felt that he didn't run his weight. He has turned into a cracking player probably better than most, if honest, ever imagined. As to the other 2 can't remember them doing anything special between them before, during or after playing for Trinity.

Really? What else do you expect to find on a forum other than people exchanging views and others disputing/discussing those views?

If that's definitely the case, you're absolutely right to say it's wrong - it may not be against the letter of the agreement, but it will certainly be against the sprit; if you know it's happening, report it to the club and let them deal with it.

Regardless of if we got rid or not, I think the feeling was that Ollie could potentially be almost a world class forward if he got his act together with regards to discipline and ball control. Never thought that either his attack or his (extremely strong, often brutal) defense was in question. Always liked him and the lift he could give us after putting a big shot on somebody, and he always came across as a decent bloke too - those who remember how he calmed down the scuffle with his brother will probably agree.

Think another big thing to remember with Ollie is how young he was when he played with us, wasn't he only 24 when he left us?

Winterstein & Leano both pointless signings that show whats wrong with both our game and club.... They shouldn't have been anywhere near the game over here in my opinion - and for what its worth I thought that Leano was the better of the 2 by a fair distance on what I saw of them both.

Yes that's wrong, though frankly with the painfully slow way of getting them and the limited demand I can't imagine it's worth it. I'm afraid abuses like that will always happen however IMO that doesn't stop it being a very good scheme IMO. I've absolutely no problem in them being forwarded on rather than being used by the actual Unison member so long as they don't personally profit. At the end of the day they have paid their subs and are entitled to the benefits even if they chose to give them to someone else.

These schemes, again IMO are the best way to introduce new fans and offer an incentive for others (Unison members) to encourage it. I've not used them personally though my wife gets them and gives them to friends who wouldn't otherwise go - obviously they pay her back the £10? she paid for them. I simply see nothing wrong with that - the club gets it's £10 plus whatever the Unison deal is, folks go who wouldn't otherwise. For me this is the better version of free or reduced tickets given out at random and should be pushed forward into other large organisations.

Just my opinion.