Re: Joe Westerman : Sun Oct 18, 2015 11:14 am  

Would a fee not need to be agreed in order to even discuss terms with a player? Surely without the selling club's permission this is tapping up no?

Re: Joe Westerman : Sun Oct 18, 2015 11:16 am  

Don't give a #### about westerman, had good potential but never lived up to hype, good to average player at best. All Leeds need is a quality solid number 9 for next year, and other signings are luxury or projects not essential. Burgess or A Thurston,Cronk would be luxury marquee not westerman.

Re: Joe Westerman : Sun Oct 18, 2015 11:23 am  

Agree with this RT. Westerman has rarely impressed me from what I have seen and our priorities are at halfback and hooker.
If on the other hand we got him for a reasonable fee say £50000 then I would be happy for him to join the squad.

Re: Joe Westerman : Sun Oct 18, 2015 11:26 am  

chapylad wrote:

Agree with this RT. Westerman has rarely impressed me from what I have seen and our priorities are at halfback and hooker.
If on the other hand we got him for a reasonable fee say £50000 then I would be happy for him to join the squad.

Still not sure I would. Free transfer or player swap and modest 60-80k salary maybe. But there are better value players out there, and we propably have better prospects coming through.

Re: Joe Westerman : Sun Oct 18, 2015 1:56 pm  

Gotcha wrote:

Think you have misunderstood my comment, as others.

We have agreed terms with players on four seperate deals in the last year, Clarke twice, Brierley, and Westerman. Told the players the deal done. Yet have failed to do business with the respective clubs.

More likely the Leeds club's agreed terms with those players who will have been under no illusion that a deal would then have to be struck with their current clubs. If those players then go spouting off saying they've signed for Leeds or go making plans before a deal's been struck then more fool them.

Re: Joe Westerman : Sun Oct 18, 2015 2:01 pm  

loiner81 wrote:

More likely the Leeds club's agreed terms with those players who will have been under no illusion that a deal would then have to be struck with their current clubs. If those players then go spouting off saying they've signed for Leeds or go making plans before a deal's been struck then more fool them.

Have you spoken to them at all? I think probably not. I will stick with the point I made which I know about.

Let's not forget we also had Salford complaining about the same thing from Leeds, and unsettling a player.

The point is if you want loyalty and commitment, which Leeds have being excellent at over the years, then how are you going to instill that in a new breed when acting like that?

Re: Joe Westerman : Sun Oct 18, 2015 2:11 pm  

Gotcha wrote:

Have you spoken to them at all? I think probably not. I will stick with the point I made which I know about.

So you claim, you've made plenty of other claims on here too that have been total horlicks.
If Clark or any others have told you that Leeds have signed them before any deal's been confirmed between the club's then that person's an idiot and you're clearly not to be trusted by those people either.

Gotcha wrote:

Let's not forget we also had Salford complaining about the same thing from Leeds, and unsettling a player.

The point is if you want loyalty and commitment, which Leeds have being excellent at over the years, then how are you going to instill that in a new breed when acting like that?

Leeds win the treble, let's find something else to chelp about.....

Re: Joe Westerman : Sun Oct 18, 2015 2:15 pm  

Wasn't the Clark deal dependent on Warrington signing a new hooker? Something completely out of Leeds' control. Wasn't Clark communicating with his current club at the same time and knew their stance/position.

Re: Joe Westerman : Sun Oct 18, 2015 2:26 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

Wasn't the Clark deal dependent on Warrington signing a new hooker? Something completely out of Leeds' control. Wasn't Clark communicating with his current club at the same time and knew their stance/position.

Obviously not because he told Gotcha it was a done deal.

Re: Joe Westerman : Sun Oct 18, 2015 2:57 pm  

loiner81 wrote:

Obviously not because he told Gotcha it was a done deal.

No, your missing the key point yet again. LEEDS told the player it was a done deal. By that the player expects the club to complete it, not presume.

I am making the point, subject to it being correct about Westerman, that there have being four occurrences in the last year of Leeds doing this. Once, is perfectly understandable, but four times you would think somebody should learn from it and be a bit more professional.

There is no need to get all defensive on the club, it is not a complaint, it is a point.