Re: Joe Westerman : Sun Oct 18, 2015 6:54 pm  

Gotcha wrote:

I don't proclaim to know inside tracks. All I know from speaking to a Leeds coach,

Re: Joe Westerman : Sun Oct 18, 2015 6:56 pm  

Gotcha wrote:

Exactly, and the players took Leeds word on it that it was sorted. Leeds assumed they would get the deal they wanted. They didn't, hence the failure of the deals.

Comes back yet again to Leeds telling players something that is not the case, and it is only that that I have made the point on.

Well then the players are foolish to take Leeds' word on it if that's what has happened.

Only a couple of people from Leeds' side will have been in the meetings and I find it very unlikely that GH or McDermott would come out and tell others "we've told Clark/Westerman/Brierley that it's a done deal".

Coming out and telling others it's a done deal maybe, but that's different to stating they've told the players in question it's a done deal.

SELLING CLUB "we're giving you permission to speak to Leeds, but we're still in the process of agreeing a fee"

LEEDS "the deal is done"

PLAYER TO SELLING CLUB "Leeds told me the deal is done"

SELLING CLUB "no it's not, they haven't matched our desired fee yet"

Player......ok I'll just believe Leeds' word then.

Re: Joe Westerman : Sun Oct 18, 2015 6:59 pm  

Joe Westerman definitely has talent although at present he certainly hasn't fulfilled it at either of his 2 previous clubs

IF I was GH would I sign Westerman,Then sorry it's a definite NO from me i'm afraid
IF Joe can get rid of his culture and one that he has had for far too long now IMO then he could be an outstanding player without a doubt

I hope that he proves me wrong and goes on to change his career for the better but I personally wouldn't touch him with a barge pole

Re: Joe Westerman : Sun Oct 18, 2015 7:06 pm  

What an absolute load of old tosh.....

So Leeds agree terms and tell the player it's a done deal with no idea of the clubs valuation on the player or if they wish to go through with the deal... Of course.... And to do that, they ask the club for permission to speak to the player (except Leigh) and therefore obviously have a discussion with the club about whether or not they're likely to agree to a release for said player, but then don't bother to discuss a likely price range before going off and agreeing terms and telling the player 'it's a done deal'.... Seems plausible.... Wait a minute, no it doesn't - it seems like a crock of something smelly that you couldn't make up... Oh wait a minute, someone just did....

Re: Joe Westerman : Sun Oct 18, 2015 7:12 pm  

Which coach were you speaking to Gotcha and are you sure it really was who you thought it was? I'm going to take a leap of faith (and with your proven record of falsely claiming conversations with Leeds officials it's quite a leap) because I'd love for you to be right, for once, with the Burgess claims.

Back to reality, I'd take GHs professionalism over that of Joe Westerman frankly, especially if Westerman is blabbing about such dealings to all and sundry. And it says all you need to know about Clarke's professionalism that he needs the club she's signed for and is allegedly trying ti get away from to sign him a chauffeur.

Actually, why are we even discussing these ridiculous hypotheticals as if they're facts?

Re: Joe Westerman : Sun Oct 18, 2015 7:14 pm  

Burgess signing would be massive. Sadly I don't believe it, and will only believe it when it happens

Westerman happy we haven't got him.

The hookers mentioned. Either souls do.

Brierly not fussed about

Re: Joe Westerman : Sun Oct 18, 2015 7:14 pm  

Gotcha wrote:

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.

I'm not getting defensive, you're definitely confused though because there's just no way that's happened.
If anything then someone from Leeds will have said "we agree to your wage terms, it'll be a done deal if/when your club agrees to transfer terms"

What you're claiming just didn't and wouldn't happen, sorry, and if that's what players have told you then they're either lying or (more likely) too thick to understand what was happening.

Re: Joe Westerman : Sun Oct 18, 2015 7:20 pm  

Gotcha wrote:

I only know the Leeds position. But considering that Hull and Warrington had agreed with the talks for Leeds to have, that would show the players they would be leaving if deals can be done would it not? Therefore I don't understand why you are so fixed on what they said.

As for Brierley, the first time, well that was made clear from the Leigh Chairman, who made it clear Leeds had spoken to him without their Permission. So I guess as they didn't know, they couldn't have told the player any different to what Leeds were saying could they?

If someone offered you a contract for a job, which you wanted, would you not believe it until your current employer told you?

With due respect you do not know the Leeds position, unless your posting name is a nom de plume for either GH or BM and something tells me that they wouldn't keep posting on going critical comments against themselves if they were you.

So at best your comments are first hand hearsay from the players concerned but more likely 2nd hand hearsay from someone who was not in the room when the talks took place.

If, as you imply, a contract was offered and that is what the players wanted why didn't the player(s) then sign the contract? The answer is they were not offered a contract because these were just exploratory talks with candidates who were being considered.

Finally may I ask the reason why you always take sides against the Leeds club on almost every issue?

Re: Joe Westerman : Sun Oct 18, 2015 7:23 pm  

And why on earth would a selling club allow Leeds to speak to their player, a contracted player, without first agreeing to the piece - Leeds could then potentially offer the player a contract that is enough to turn their head and unsettle them - so the player now adamantly wants to move, as it's a substantial upgrade on their earnings, Leeds then fail to come to terms with the club, so the selling club are left with an unsettled player, who wants out to join Leeds and probably holds a grudge against his current club for holding him back and preventing him taking advantage of a lucrative contract..... Seems like a great way to do business on both clubs part..... RIDICULOUS

So this is either - completely made up by the poster to try claim some sort of 'in the know' bragging rights and also have a pop at Leeds...

Or,

The poster has heard a few bits and pieces on the grapevine, has added 2 + 2 and come to 550000...

Or,

Someone has given the poor poster this info as 'gospel' knowing how gullible they are and is now laughing their socks off that not only did the person believe the utter tripe, but has then posted it on the internet and hung his hat on it....

I really hope it's the last one - coz at least someone has had a good giggle out of it...

Re: Joe Westerman : Sun Oct 18, 2015 7:26 pm  

Why would Hull FC allow one of their better players to discuss terms with a rival SL club?
IMO that question is also the answer I'm afraid