: Thu Jul 23, 2009 12:13 pm  

tvoc wrote:

Obviously my use of the word 'humble' would exclude your good self from the collective description.

Little point with false modesty

That said even you have opined that the squad could be stronger which I have taken as partial acceptance that this year's squad is understrength within the constraints of the salary cap.

yes, I think the squad "could" be stronger. I humbly defer my rebuttal to Mr gilder's eloquent post.

Regardless of what you or I says on the matter the CEO agrees with the general proposition.

What proposition? That the squad "could" be stronger or that the squad isn't strong enough to win the title because I doubt its' the latter.

: Thu Jul 23, 2009 12:16 pm  

tvoc wrote:

If you are at salary cap level you can't improve the squad.

As Leeds are under for 2009 they could and rightly or wrongly I view G1's comment in that light.

Why can't you?

Does a player's salary give the definitive comment on his ability?

What is to say that sacrificing a higher earner for someone who say plays a different position and commands a lower salary wouldn't provide for a better balanced and thereby "stronger" squad?

: Thu Jul 23, 2009 12:19 pm  

Gotcha wrote:

If this weekend Leeds pick up injuries to 3 key players, your argument would be in the bin.

If they dont pick up injuries, as I said yesterday your argument is vindicated.

All IFS and BUTTS. But you cant deny it was a risk by the club to go with the squad we had, as admitted by Hetherington recently. Although could be proved correct in the end.

Weren't leeds missing some key players last week when they completed the double over the 4th placed team in the league?

I don't think a speight of injuries to key players proves anything other than rotten luck for the team that suffers them.

Have Saints goen into the season under strength because of the poor luck they're having with injuries?

: Thu Jul 23, 2009 12:32 pm  

G1 wrote:

What proposition? That the squad "could" be stronger or that the squad isn't strong enough to win the title because I doubt its' the latter.

The former when he said in the YEP on the 14th July 2009: "There’s no doubt we have been running light, particularly with our forward options this year.”

: Thu Jul 23, 2009 12:40 pm  

Andy Gilder wrote:

Why can't you?

Does a player's salary give the definitive comment on his ability?

What is to say that sacrificing a higher earner for someone who say plays a different position and commands a lower salary wouldn't provide for a better balanced and thereby "stronger" squad?

The proposition states that a club is at the limit of their permitted salary cap spend in a given season.

Do you have a practical example of a club sacrificing a contracted higher earner (who would need another club to have space to pick up such a salary for it to be removed from the selling clubs books altogether.)

I'm thinking you'll offer Warrington with the Gleeson - Mathers deal but it's impossible to know what Warrington would have achieved any different had Gleeson still been there.

: Thu Jul 23, 2009 12:48 pm  

G1 wrote:

I don't think a speight of injuries to key players proves anything other than rotten luck for the team that suffers them.

When it seems to happen year after year I'd say it shows the club has problems with their training, be it the facilities or the methods. Mr McDermott made that point on Boots N All last night with regards to Hull, who do seem to go through this process every year.

: Thu Jul 23, 2009 12:50 pm  

Lord_Percy wrote:

When it seems to happen year after year I'd say it shows the club has problems with their training, be it the facilities or the methods. Mr McDermott made that point on Boots N All last night with regards to Hull, who do seem to go through this process every year.

It used to be Leeds with the hamstrings IIRC

: Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:14 pm  

If Leeds do go on to win the title again, it will be partially down to luck, that we didn't get a whole load of injuries at the same time, and partly down to faith in the depth that we have from our juniors. Of course we know that the first 17 is as strong as any in the league.

: Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:15 pm  

tvoc wrote:

Was Willie Poching a 'Kolpak Stiff' and if he wasn't what prevented him being one?

You could argue that we was, and as I said earlier, recruitment is different now, to what it was in 2002 when we signed him.

I personally think he was an established SL player when we signed him, which rules him out of that category.

: Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:31 pm  

leicester_rhino wrote:

You could argue that we was, and as I said earlier, recruitment is different now, to what it was in 2002 when we signed him.

I personally think he was an established SL player when we signed him, which rules him out of that category.

I wasn't thinking about his signing for Leeds specifically. At the equivalent age he'd trod a similar path to that of Sam Moa although Moa has now arrived in SL at a younger age than Poching did.

Willie Poching was an outstanding player for both Wakefield and Leeds IMO and if that's an example of a 'Kolpak Stiff' then they can't be all bad.