Re: Joe Westerman : Sun Oct 18, 2015 9:02 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

Do you know it's correct though?

A - Were you in the meetings?

B - Was the person who told you in the meetings?

I've already mentioned this......guess what no answers!

Re: Joe Westerman : Sun Oct 18, 2015 9:12 pm  

Well Mick Gledhill mentioned Widdop weeks ago .Nice bit of knobble there young Mick

Re: Joe Westerman : Mon Oct 19, 2015 7:52 am  

I'll chip my 50p worth in and say i was told re-Clark that we'd agreed a deal with player in terms of Contract length and wages which was always dependent on Wire finding a replacement AND us agreeing a fee i was told we had sorted the latter but Wire weren't happy they could get an adequate replacement so it went down the plug hole the Player was perfectly aware of this.
Re-Westerman check my earlier comments when he was linked but i'm happy enough to believe but everything was agreed with the player "PROVIDING" we could agree a deal with FC something i'm sure GH made clear.
Now like most things although i personally have no reason not to trust where this info came from at the same time deals fall through every day in sport and RL i don't see why it has to be some sort of p!$$ing contest.

Re: Joe Westerman : Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:12 am  

Gotcha wrote:

I am not saying anyone should believe me. I am making a point. I have posted here long enough and clearly pointed out enough that I don't have the insecurities of others. If I post something it is because I am confident enough in what is said. I know it is correct so it is good enough for me.

I mean come on, I am not going to apologise just because I have far more knowledge on some things than others. Had I seen a valid argument against the point I made on here then I would certainly consider it. But lack of knowledge from those arguing isn't a valid argument matey.

What I will give you an assurance on though is that if anyone with true connections can give an assurance that Westerman or Clarke did not agree terms with Leeds, then I will apologise immediately.

I am not saying I disbelieve that you spoke to someone who passed on some gossip to you, be it a junior coach, player for player's relation. However I do not believe the person(s) that told you all this stuff was present at any of the discussions with these players, therefore anything passed on is pure hearsay or gossip.

What I cannot understand is why we keep hearing these rumours are "a done deal" because the only "done deal" is when a contract is signed by all 3 parties. Why don't the rumour mongers make it clear it is just a bit of gossip albeit from a trusted source or a chap in the pub.

It says a lot of the naivety of the folk that you regard as sources and indeed of your own judgement in believing hook line and sinker what is clearly second/third hand gossip which in some cases could include a slice of bias all of which you regard as "knowledge"

I note you now have moved from the "done deal" to "agreed terms" which are two quite different things.

Re: Joe Westerman : Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:22 am  

Juan Cornetto wrote:

I am not saying I disbelieve that you spoke to someone who passed on some gossip to you, be it a junior coach, player for player's relation. However I do not believe the person(s) that told you all this stuff was present at any of the discussions with these players, therefore anything passed on is pure hearsay or gossip.

What I cannot understand is why we keep hearing these rumours are "a done deal" because the only "done deal" is when a contract is signed by all 3 parties. Why don't the rumour mongers make it clear it is just a bit of gossip albeit from a trusted source or a chap in the pub.

It says a lot of the naivety of the folk that you regard as sources and indeed of your own judgement in believing hook line and sinker what is clearly second/third hand gossip which in some cases could include a slice of bias all of which you regard as "knowledge"

I note you now have moved from the "done deal" to "agreed terms" which are two quite different things.

I would ask you one thing and one thing only, reread what I have said and not make assumptions based on clueless posters that derail threads.

You are correct that I posted I had heard the same thing about Westerman, but this was because the Burgess signing was a goer, and it had come from a coach at Leeds. That bit I take your doubts with in good faith, although I am comfortable with it.

Where I don't accept your doubts is regarding Clarke, as this came straight from his mouth, and I have been clear on that. Not hearsay, not bar talk as you put it, but straight from the player. It had even gone as far as new accommodation sorted, helped by Leeds, as they were clear it was a done deal. I also don't accept your doubts on Westerman's contract offer, again this comes direct from the player, although I do accept not direct to me. But regardless it is definitely correct.

As I said in the post you quoted. I am comfortable with the information, as would not have posted otherwise. I don't have these small man insecurities of others, so have no worry's about being doubted, and nor do I just expect people to accept it. I post what is relevant and stick by it, not for attention, but for discussion.

Re: Joe Westerman : Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:24 am  

Wish people would stop putting Clarke when they mean Clark. It's getting as bad as Burrows and Maguire now

Re: Joe Westerman : Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:25 am  

The only part of this that remotely interests me anymore is the apparent fact that burgess in definitely coming? Which to me seems the only bit that is unlikely to be true.

Re: Joe Westerman : Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:53 am  

Gotcha wrote:

I would ask you one thing and one thing only, reread what I have said and not make assumptions based on clueless posters that derail threads.

You are correct that I posted I had heard the same thing about Westerman, but this was because the Burgess signing was a goer, and it had come from a coach at Leeds. That bit I take your doubts with in good faith, although I am comfortable with it.

Where I don't accept your doubts is regarding Clarke, as this came straight from his mouth, and I have been clear on that. Not hearsay, not bar talk as you put it, but straight from the player. It had even gone as far as new accommodation sorted, helped by Leeds, as they were clear it was a done deal. I also don't accept your doubts on Westerman's contract offer, again this comes direct from the player, although I do accept not direct to me. But regardless it is definitely correct.

As I said in the post you quoted. I am comfortable with the information, as would not have posted otherwise. I don't have these small man insecurities of others, so have no worry's about being doubted, and nor do I just expect people to accept it. I post what is relevant and stick by it, not for attention, but for discussion.

IF Clark and Westerman believed they had 'done deals' then they are as naive as you - there is no way a club would categorically confirm with the player it's a 'done deal' without having agreed terms with the selling club.

Burgess signing is interested and would be fantastic and would also fall in line with a thread I started a while ago commenting that I'd been told Leeds had made a 'world class' signing that would rock Super League, but I still can't believe it. The person I got this from is most definitely in a position to have the details and is usually good for giving bits of info and usually a name, but there was no way he was giving an inch on the detail of this one, in his words 'he'd already said too much', so if it is true, and a member of the coaching staff is leaking it, there'll be hell on internally..... Plus, if bookies are taking prices on Burgess signing, that individual could find themselves in hot water ala Mr Mathers....

Re: Joe Westerman : Mon Oct 19, 2015 10:12 am  

Superted wrote:

IF Clark and Westerman believed they had 'done deals' then they are as naive as you - there is no way a club would categorically confirm with the player it's a 'done deal' without having agreed terms with the selling club.

Burgess signing is interested and would be fantastic and would also fall in line with a thread I started a while ago commenting that I'd been told Leeds had made a 'world class' signing that would rock Super League, but I still can't believe it. The person I got this from is most definitely in a position to have the details and is usually good for giving bits of info and usually a name, but there was no way he was giving an inch on the detail of this one, in his words 'he'd already said too much', so if it is true, and a member of the coaching staff is leaking it, there'll be hell on internally..... Plus, if bookies are taking prices on Burgess signing, that individual could find themselves in hot water ala Mr Mathers....

IF there's any mileage at all in the Burgess rumours, I suspect the boot's probably on the other foot with members of Leeds' staff believing in a (fictional) done deal. Burgess is in a position where he can listen to all manner of offers. Why would he have rushed into signing for us when he's in a position to let a bidding war run its course?

Re: Joe Westerman : Mon Oct 19, 2015 10:16 am  

Superted wrote:

IF Clark and Westerman believed they had 'done deals' then they are as naive as you - there is no way a club would categorically confirm with the player it's a 'done deal' without having agreed terms with the selling club.

They did agree terms with Warrington, subject to Wire finding a replacement. If you don't think the club helping with accommodation and assuring the player of the deal should be regarded as anything other than done in the players eyes, then I suggest you take fairly untrusting view of the world.

Compare and contrast to Aiton leaving here and the comments of people writing him off and calling him greedy. Funny how the views change when on the other foot.

Superted wrote:

Burgess signing is interested and would be fantastic and would also fall in line with a thread I started a while ago commenting that I'd been told Leeds had made a 'world class' signing that would rock Super League, but I still can't believe it. The person I got this from is most definitely in a position to have the details and is usually good for giving bits of info and usually a name, but there was no way he was giving an inch on the detail of this one, in his words 'he'd already said too much', so if it is true, and a member of the coaching staff is leaking it, there'll be hell on internally..... Plus, if bookies are taking prices on Burgess signing, that individual could find themselves in hot water ala Mr Mathers....

So it is ok as long as you hear about it, then it could be true? By the way, I think the Burgess situation as arisen out of his disappointing world cup, and nothing more. Had that not happened, I think Burgess would be a union player for the rest of his career.