: Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:43 pm  

tvoc wrote:

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.

One of the founder playing squad of the Hunter Mariners before his arrival in England IIRC - not sure how many SL appearances he made Down Under though...

: Thu Jul 23, 2009 1:44 pm  

tvoc wrote:

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.

Poching was a great servant to leeds and Wakey, but there should be plenty of players being produced by clubs of a similar standard. The reason is that clubs would rather sign a ready made product like Poching, or Moa, or Korkidas, or plenty of the other foreign players out there, as its easier than developing their own.

: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:35 pm  

leicester_rhino wrote:

Poching was a great servant to leeds and Wakey, but there should be plenty of players being produced by clubs of a similar standard. The reason is that clubs would rather sign a ready made product like Poching, or Moa, or Korkidas, or plenty of the other foreign players out there, as its easier than developing their own.

But Moa isn't ready made.

When we played Hull at Heaingley Sky attributed a quote to Agar that Moa was "a project".

: Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:03 pm  

In all this debate I'm still unsure as to which players those who believe we are understrength consider that we should have signed.
It's pointless simply spending money for the sake of it just because we can.
I'm sure that the management team have done their best to seek additional players but have decided that those available or on offer would not add to the existing squad.

: Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:10 pm  

Old Feller wrote:

In all this debate I'm still unsure as to which players those who believe we are understrength consider that we should have signed.
It's pointless simply spending money for the sake of it just because we can.
I'm sure that the management team have done their best to seek additional players but have decided that those available or on offer would not add to the existing squad.

You could argue that Gleeson was available and would have improved our backline. It may be that we didn't want to touch him with a bargepole, information that most fans aren't privvy to.

We could have signed Solia for next season, it wouldn't have done much good this year though.

Can't think of many other signings that othe SL clubs have made that I regretted us not getting, doesn't mean that others weren't available though

: Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:34 pm  

leicester_rhino wrote:

You could argue that Gleeson was available and would have improved our backline. It may be that we didn't want to touch him with a bargepole, information that most fans aren't privvy to.

We could have signed Solia for next season, it wouldn't have done much good this year though.

Can't think of many other signings that othe SL clubs have made that I regretted us not getting, doesn't mean that others weren't available though

Would we have had to get rid of players to fit Gleeson in under the cap given that Eastwood may be here next year (I think this deal was done before Smith confirmed he was leaving for Wasps)

: Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:36 pm  

leicester_rhino wrote:

You could argue that Gleeson was available and would have improved our backline. It may be that we didn't want to touch him with a bargepole, information that most fans aren't privvy to.

I can imagine the outcry from some quarters if Leeds had bust the bank to sign Martin Gleeson - "why are we signing a player at the end of his career who is going to get in the way of Watkins/Gibson/Ratu/Broughton?"

: Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:58 pm  

leicester_rhino wrote:

You could argue that Gleeson was available and would have improved our backline. It may be that we didn't want to touch him with a bargepole, information that most fans aren't privvy to.

We could have signed Solia for next season, it wouldn't have done much good this year though.

Can't think of many other signings that othe SL clubs have made that I regretted us not getting, doesn't mean that others weren't available though

Your second two sentences are what is more relevant.

Gleeson is irrelevant. He wasn't what we needed.

The club themseleves have identified that the forwards were needed, hence the signing of Eastwood. Eastwood did not materialize so we were light, meaning that players of the calibre of Kirke are now established starters. The club have realized this problem and signed 2 more forwards, one of which they have signed immediately.

The issue is, could they have done something about it earlier? Players do not have to be made publically available to be available. And has 2010 recruitment been damaged because of the Eastwood affair?

: Thu Jul 23, 2009 4:41 pm  

Gotcha wrote:

Your second two sentences are what is more relevant.

Gleeson is irrelevant. He wasn't what we needed.

The club themseleves have identified that the forwards were needed, hence the signing of Eastwood. Eastwood did not materialize so we were light, meaning that players of the calibre of Kirke are now established starters. The club have realized this problem and signed 2 more forwards, one of which they have signed immediately.

The issue is, could they have done something about it earlier? Players do not have to be made publically available to be available. And has 2010 recruitment been damaged because of the Eastwood affair?

So do you know that nothings happening/happened behind the scenes then???????
You know we went after pritchard,soliola and recently millard i'd say that they have tried to do the deals but 1 reason or another they haven't come off.
As for the 2010 recruitment only time will tell how/if that's been disrupted.

: Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:42 pm  

Gotcha wrote:

Players do not have to be made publically available to be available.

Quite so. Pitts wasn't available publically but it didn't stop Leeds making an approach to Wakefield and for the signing to follow shortly after.