You said the player was made a promise. I asked who made it and what was it. You still haven't answered. It's simple really.

What was promised to him?
Who promised it?
How are you privy to this?

That is all I am curious about. How can I be desperately keen to be right when I haven't made a proposition? I'm simply curious about the validity of your proposition.

If you answered the questions I posed then you would answer your own also.

OK, I will do.

Did McClennan state on Pitts signing that they saw him as a prop?

No, he said "“We will have to work with him to build him up, we see him as a young prop coming through, more than a back-rower". The pertinent words being "more than" and "we will have to work with him"

I see no promises there. The coach didn't say, I've promised to make Jay a prop. Simply an observation of his view going forward. No guarantees and an obvious statement there was work to be done. You've taken a huge leap to interpret that as a promise.

As this was a change of role for Pitts would this not have been agreed upon with the player before he signed?

I can't answer that because I don't agree that it was a change of role at all. I'm sure Pitts had propped before and knew he's prop again in the future, like many back rowers do. It's an interchangeable role. Ask JJB or Kirke. Delaney even packed down in the front row. Nor can I answer what was discussed because unlike you I do not draw huge inferences from short statements in press releases and misinterpret them. I suspect the only thing agreed upon and promised to young Pitts was a lot of hard work. I suspect that because all the press releases say it.

"As there was an agreement made with the player on this, you can call it what you want, a guarantee, a promise, and undertaking, a stipulation, a word of honour, an assurance, etc, but no player is going to go into it without some form of the above."

Now, I know this wasn't, technically, one of your questions but there you go again. You glibly state, "as there was an agreement made with the player on this" as if that is fact and then go on to base everything else on the facts you have made up or inferred from your understanding of a short comment in a press report. The only agreement we know of was the playing contract he signed. Do you think that stipulated he'd play prop?

"With the above in mind answer properly, have the club played Pitts as a prop? as he developed any differently to the player we signed three years ago?"

I don't think so and I don't think so. So what? Where does this take your claims of promises?

Here's the crux. The signed a young player. Said they envisaged him playing a certain position more than another (not exclusively) but made it clear he'd have a lot of work to do to get near the first team. It hasn't worked out.

No promises made, no promises broken.

That's the case for the prosecution, M'Lud.
Has the defence withdrawn its innocent plea?

I f'kin well hope so.

Compared to some of the boring, asinine, crud I have to formulate arguments about daily, arguing about Rugby issues is a blessed relief.

The only difference being I get paid to argue the boring, asinine, crud. Actually, between me you and the gate post i sometimes get paid to argue with Gotcha on here if a client annoys me too much.

"The human torch was denied a bank loan"

Che?

Burgundy!

Is there a gas-leak or something in here?

I believe he's talking about James Graham. Obviously got money troubles over in Oz.