[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/8064934.stmor maybe not[/url

viewtopic.php?t=411594

viewtopic.php?t=411594

Although this has been done again lets just remind everyone how much better Leeds Rhinos are than St Helens. We are so much better then them we have two ex British Leeds Rhinos players in the NRL.



Something the St Helens club couldn’t manage!

Not necessarily through choice though.



TBH given Leeds supposed tie in with the Rabbitohs, I hoped there my have been more short term switches between the clubs, not only of fringe players but maybe established players for a season or two to get more/different experience.



This could also apply to the coaching staff on a short term basis where they can look at different techniques and methods.

[iTansey is due to stay at Sydney for two years and then head back to Leeds, who have retained his registration. But it must be hugely tempting to remain on Bondi Beach.



"I'm due back at Leeds in 2011, but if Sydney offered me another deal it would be very hard to turn down," he admitted.



"I'll be back in Super League one day, but whether that is next season or in five years' time, who knows? I'd hope when I do come back I'll be able to play for the Rhinos again. "



If Leeds do take Tansey back[/i



So what does 'holding a player's registration' actually mean?

we get a transfer fee? Isn't that what happened with Harris, or was that something different?

That appears a very flexible deal where Leeds and the player are concerned. One year, five years, who knows.



So how do Leeds plan their recruitment and salary cap spend in the meantime?



It sounds rather like Leeds have effectively seen the back of Tansey but have covered his possible early return to SL with the registration clause triggering a transfer fee if he lands back and wants to play elsewhere.



Does it finally confirm that Tansey was not contracted to Leeds (playing contract wise) after the end of 2008?

I thought Leeds didn't plan their recruitment or Salary Cap spend





Didn't Leeds claim to hold Harris registration but the RFL decide that the "first refusal" clause didn't amount to registration and any contract between the club and the player in contract law and was none of their business.

Good question. On current form they'll probably do nothing at all







It seems a very strange deal to me.. we should be asking for a fee if hes not coming back, he can't be under contract anymore surely ??

Also can't see where he'd get back into the squad at present. Only way is if Smith left. Then he'd be Webb's natural successor.

If true, it's not a laughing matter that they don't.

My hope is that the club are still trying to recruit on the following basis:



There is no urgent rush as the SL is not a first past the post race.

They can agree with Eastwood over the next month whether he is coming next season (They may already have agreed he's not coming and are delaying the announcement until they have a replacement signed up)

They continue to finalise their plans for current players over the course of the next month.



This will give them an idea of where they will need to recruit and what amount of salary cap they have available.



( It will also give them time to do background checks to see if an available signing, if from Oz, will qualify for a visa)

And in the meantime the rest of Super League and the NRL will finalize their recruiting for next season with the available quality.



But no panic, as Leeds can just wait again until the middle of next season for someone else to become available.