Matters Arising : Tue Mar 31, 2009 6:28 pm  

Are Bradford correct in doing this? Loaning a player to presumably get gametime elsewhere and then restricting his availability if it looks a tough encounter? And Keith Mason running in from a distance to a skirmishand not holding back when he gets there. Found guilty and fined by the RFL but no suspension? Is the disciplinary committee on the right lines? And speaking of Huddersfield you have to admire their ambitionto not leave any stones unturned as they build a challenge to the top two.

Are Bradford correct in doing this? Loaning a player to presumably get gametime elsewhere and then restricting his availability if it looks a tough encounter? And Keith Mason running in from a distance to a skirmishand not holding back when he gets there. Found guilty and fined by the RFL but no suspension? Is the disciplinary committee on the right lines? And speaking of Huddersfield you have to admire their ambitionto not leave any stones unturned as they build a challenge to the top two.

Re: Matters Arising : Tue Mar 31, 2009 6:56 pm  

tvoc wrote: Are Bradford correct in doing this? Loaning a player to presumably get gametime elsewhere and then restricting his availability if it looks a tough encounter? Yes i suppose they are as he is their player, and they do not want him to be cup-tied should they need his services in the latter rounds of the competition. The Bulls could also be guilty of restricting one of their junior players development here, but that wouldn't be a first though would it ?

tvoc wrote: Are Bradford correct in doing this? Loaning a player to presumably get gametime elsewhere and then restricting his availability if it looks a tough encounter? Yes i suppose they are as he is their player, and they do not want him to be cup-tied should they need his services in the latter rounds of the competition. The Bulls could also be guilty of restricting one of their junior players development here, but that wouldn't be a first though would it ?

Re: Matters Arising : Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:01 pm  

The Biffs Back wrote:

Yes i suppose they are as he is their player, and they do not want him to be cup-tied should they need his services in the latter rounds of the competition.

Sounds unlikely but yes I hadn't considered that.

Re: Matters Arising : Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:02 pm  

tvoc wrote: Keith Mason running in from a distance to a skirmishand not holding back when he gets there. Found guilty and fined by the RFL but no suspension? Is the disciplinary committee on the right lines? Yes, if that is going to be deemed to be an acceptable act for all SL players for the remainder of the season. It's no big surprise that Mason has been accused of "running in" to a fight that he didn't start, does he ever ? If i remember correctly, he had a pop at JP whilst he was wrapped up in a 2 man tackle, the ironic thing about this "cheap shot merchant" is that if Ryan Bailey did the self same thing, then he would be vilified by the feckwits on these forums as being a thug! One rule for one, and another for someone else i suppose

tvoc wrote: Keith Mason running in from a distance to a skirmishand not holding back when he gets there. Found guilty and fined by the RFL but no suspension? Is the disciplinary committee on the right lines? Yes, if that is going to be deemed to be an acceptable act for all SL players for the remainder of the season. It's no big surprise that Mason has been accused of "running in" to a fight that he didn't start, does he ever ? If i remember correctly, he had a pop at JP whilst he was wrapped up in a 2 man tackle, the ironic thing about this "cheap shot merchant" is that if Ryan Bailey did the self same thing, then he would be vilified by the feckwits on these forums as being a thug! One rule for one, and another for someone else i suppose

Re: Matters Arising : Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:09 pm  

tvoc wrote:

Sounds unlikely but yes I hadn't considered that.

You're obviously cheering for the Dragons then

Re: Matters Arising : Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:50 pm  

The Biffs Back wrote:

You're obviously cheering for the Dragons then

As a rule I almost always cheer for Bradford's opponents. I'm fickle like that.

Re: Matters Arising : Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:50 pm  

tvoc wrote:

As a rule I almost always cheer for Bradford's opponents. I'm fickle like that.

Can't fault you, me too

Re: Matters Arising : Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:50 pm  

tvoc wrote: And speaking of Huddersfield you have to admire their ambitionto not leave any stones unturned as they build a challenge to the top two. First its' Hull we shoud emulate now Huddersfield. Are you hoping we'll finish about 8th?

tvoc wrote: And speaking of Huddersfield you have to admire their ambitionto not leave any stones unturned as they build a challenge to the top two. First its' Hull we shoud emulate now Huddersfield. Are you hoping we'll finish about 8th?

Re: Matters Arising : Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:38 am  

tvoc wrote: Are Bradford correct in doing this? Loaning a player to presumably get gametime elsewhere and then restricting his availability if it looks a tough encounter? And Keith Mason running in from a distance to a skirmishand not holding back when he gets there. Found guilty and fined by the RFL but no suspension? Is the disciplinary committee on the right lines? And speaking of Huddersfield you have to admire their ambitionto not leave any stones unturned as they build a challenge to the top two. I doubt he would add much to our squad but I see the point your getting at.

tvoc wrote: Are Bradford correct in doing this? Loaning a player to presumably get gametime elsewhere and then restricting his availability if it looks a tough encounter? And Keith Mason running in from a distance to a skirmishand not holding back when he gets there. Found guilty and fined by the RFL but no suspension? Is the disciplinary committee on the right lines? And speaking of Huddersfield you have to admire their ambitionto not leave any stones unturned as they build a challenge to the top two. I doubt he would add much to our squad but I see the point your getting at.

Re: Matters Arising : Wed Apr 01, 2009 10:14 am  

G1 wrote:

First its' Hull we shoud emulate now Huddersfield.

Are you hoping we'll finish about 8th?

I'd be happy for Leeds to emulate any club that acknowledges when there is a deficency within the playing squad (with room + wriggle room under the cap) and go out and do something about it.

For me it's a matter of Leeds being the best Leeds can be within the rules. Hull and Huddersfield have shown that making late signings isn't the impossibility some would have you believe.

Leeds have already failed to defend one title and set a record no other club can boast. Becoming back to back to back champions would be something else no other club in the SL Era could lay claim to. Pity if that isn't achieved having come this far while underfunding the 1st team squad.