I'll stop you there, then we can agree for a change.

I didn't say that. I said that by the end of June they should be aiming to close off all the other issues so they know exactly where they need to recruit. That doesn't stop them sounding out agents in the meantime and progressing initial discussions.



My expectation would be that if they are signing an NRL playe the deal would be done by July and if the NRL player was at a team with poor playoff potential may even be available for the run-in this season.



Please think before jumping in and making yourself look an idiot.

You'd be surprised to learn that I generally tend to agree with your thoughts, I think the squad is thin, I just don't think that recruiting now for recruitings sake is in the best interest of the club in the medium to long-term.



There are several issues to which I and I suspect most of the posters on here don't know the status of which will have a bearing on recruitment. I would expect GH and BM to know the stauus of these and be panning the recruitment.



There maybe a big chunk of salary cap left this year, but IMO it is only worthwhile using it if it fits in with the plans for the future.

Was Lauitiiti recruitment for recruitment's sake?



Where I suspect we differ slightly is that 2009 is the future that matters most right now. IMO, the CEO should have been sourcing replacements for Ellis, Toopi, Scruton and Tansey from the last two season's championship winning squads and failure to do so was not really an acceptable option. Buderus is a high quality replacement for Diskin except Diskin is still here. Buderus was an eighty minute 'real deal' in the NRL, I see no reason to doubt he's capable of being the same in SL.







As I said above the future for me is now. In all honesty I didn't expect Leeds to go into the season understrength and way under the cap. The present 1 to 18 (excluding the number 15) on form is still capable of retaining their title. Losing two or three players from it or the ability to rotate the squad jeopardises that.

No I don't think Ali was recruitment for recruitment sake. He beacame available and was in a position that Leeds wanted to recruit. Because Leeds had space under the cap they were in the prime position to recruit him as they could sign him immediately for the current year. WE are in the prime position again should a player of that calibre become available.



We may be able to recruit Danny Brough or Danny Sculthorpe at the moment which may help our squad this year but would not IMO be of benefit in the medium term unless we took them on loan.



As you said the current squad is capable of winning the SL. There should be no reason why they can't rotate and rest players with a front 6 of



Burgess, Bailey, Leuluai, Peacock, Kirke, JJB, Ali, Diskin, Buderus, Sinfield, Ablett and in the background Worrall, Allen and McShane.



Thats 11 players and three academy for 9/10 playing spots.



The problem comes with injuries, niggling injuries should be covered but long term injuries would cause problems. Unfortunately these cn only be covered as and when they arise.



My guess is that there was also a concern over Brent Webb and how he recovered from his back problem and this may also have lead to the club not recruiting in other positions until they were confident that he would be able to perform for the whole season.

He's making the most of his opportunity. Well done lad.

So why use the term earlier when it's not something Leeds have done in the recent past? Were Thackray or Toopi recruitment for recruitment's sake?







Which position would Danny 'trouble' Brough strengthen at Leeds even in the short term? Half back is covered by three (as is hooker), not sure where else you would have in mind for him.







Not quite what I said. Had Leeds recruited suitable replacements for the outgoing Ellis, Toopi, Scruton and Tansey then I could agree with that statement.







As you say that's eleven players for ten spots out of virtually every seventeen. Hardly what I'd call adequate cover when looking to rest and rotate never mind cover the inevitable injuries that will come along over the course of the season. The irony is the early Challenge Cup exit helps to paper over the cracks of a limited squad. I thought the idea was to assemble a squad capable of achieving all the teams goals before the season commenced though and that for me should includ the Challenge Cup.









It's a reasonable guess on your part. Lee Smith/Ben Jones-Bishop could have been required there moreso than they have been. The thought just makes signing a quality replacement for Toopi even more of a priority though.

How silly of you to expect that from a champion side.... we are Leeds afterall...

Now you mention it I do feel a little foolish.



Eleven time winners, (third behind Wigan (17) and St Helens (12)) Pffft.



I suppose becoming a Championship winning side is a plus but I still miss winning the Challenge Cup and yearn for a time when Leeds could do both in the same season. Just like Bradford, Halifax, Huddersfield, Hunslet, Swinton, St Helens, Warrington and Wigan halve all done at least on one occasion and some more often than that.

The term was used in relation to the arguments to recruit a prop/second row which may or may not be required depending on the Eastwood situation, there is no point signing a prop long term if Eastwood is coming (subject to Kylie being resigned)





DB was probably a bad example, but he is a player that may be available a la Ali (not quite the same class), that could be available and would help with squad rotation for this season.



You said:



"The present 1 to 18 (excluding the number 15) on form is still capable of retaining their title. Losing two or three players from it or the ability to rotate the squad jeopardises that." I don't see that being different from my comment of:



"As you said the current squad is capable of winning the SL. There should be no reason why they can't rotate and rest players with a front 6 of



Burgess, Bailey, Leuluai, Peacock, Kirke, JJB, Ali, Diskin, Buderus, Sinfield, Ablett and in the background Worrall, Allen and McShane.



Thats 11 players and three academy for 9/10 playing spots. "









I said there are 11 players plus 3 academy players (Worrall, Allen & McShane who all have SL experience) for 9/10 spotsdependin on a 3/4 forwards policy. There is no reason why you can't rotate a squad with that number of players.







The consensus was that Leeds targetted Soliola and Pritchard, neither of which came off for whatever reason. On that basis it was reasonable top go with Gibson/Watkins/Smith as a centre with Ablett as backup given the number of games Toopi had played the previous season.





I'm not saying that the recruitment couldn't have been better just that there were a few factors were mitigating the lack of recruitment and that Leeds squad should, without long term injuries, be good enough to compete with the other teams in SL. I would expect any deficiencies in the squad to be addressed this year (whether that is from NRL, other SL clubs or the academy/reserves we will have to wait and see). Not being able torecruit for a second year will be seen as failure.

Interesting choice of phrase - "not being able to recruit".



If you have a list of players you think would strengthen your team but for whatever reason (prefer to sign for a club where their mates are, don't fancy relocating, can't get a visa) your preferred targets can't be secured, how far down your list do you go before settling for what you have?



I've no doubt that had they wanted to, Leeds could have recruited "name" players for 2009 once it became apparent that their first choices were heading elsewhere (if indeed the names rumoured were anything more than just paper talk). Question is, would those second, third or fourth choice targets have a) improved the squad and b) provided value for money?

Exactly.