: Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:19 pm  

Matt23 wrote:

:lol:
Would you really want us to sign Gleeson though tvoc? Given all the rumoured off field problems?
Part of me thinks we should be in the market for a player as obviously talented as Gleeson. The other half thinks that he'd be a complete waste of money.

my thoughts also.

: Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:24 pm  

Matt23 wrote:

:lol:
Would you really want us to sign Gleeson though tvoc? Given all the rumoured off field problems?
Part of me thinks we should be in the market for a player as obviously talented as Gleeson. The other half thinks that he'd be a complete waste of money.

That would depend entirely on the basis for the rumours. Rumours are just that. There was once a rumour on here that a Leeds star didn't get on with Tony Smith either but it didn't stop them being arm in arm after winning the 2007 Grand Final together.

On the field Gleeson is the best English right centre playing in SL. Why wouldn't Leeds have been interested in acquiring that talent?

: Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:26 pm  

Richie wrote:

Yes you will

Perhaps I could have asked you if you thought a chequebook would freshen up the players and improve the coach.

Definitely it would give the team a lift it would enable players to have a rest and it would give the coach more options so in a word yes.

: Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:31 pm  

tvoc wrote:

On the field Gleeson is the best English right centre playing in SL. Why wouldn't Leeds have been interested in acquiring that talent?

I'd have been interested in signing Gleeson for Leeds, but certainly not for £100K and Mathers!
Wigan once again showing their desperation, although it hasn't donw much good. It's the coach Wigan have, not the players!

: Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:32 pm  

I don't know but I can guess...

a) We are tight and don't like paying transfer fees.
b) The rumours are truer (or more believable to the club) than we think. (It's not like he doesn't have previous for being a t*t).
c) His wage demands (compared to what Wigan may (or may not) be giving him, were way too high.

We've lost 2 international players (Ellis & Toopi) and replaced them with one (Buderus). Add to the fact we've lost Scruton, the recruitment of another player before the end of the season is vital IMO.

But this brings the question, do we want an out and out centre, with big wage demands and the reputation for being abit of a liability off the pitch?
Gleeson would have been a nice signing in terms of balancing up the side, but I also feel we're very lightweight upfront now.
Like I said I'm 50/50 on this issue, but I think we're a big lad light upfront, and would prefer to see money going on that, than Gleeson.

: Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:41 pm  

Matt23 wrote:

But this brings the question, do we want an out and out centre, with big wage demands and the reputation for being abit of a liability off the pitch?
Gleeson would have been a nice signing in terms of balancing up the side, but I also feel we're very lightweight upfront now.
Like I said I'm 50/50 on this issue, but I think we're a big lad light upfront, and would prefer to see money going on that, than Gleeson.

Given the make-up of the rest of the squad if Leeds don't have the cap space to do both then someone's on too much money.

: Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:45 pm  

tvoc wrote:

Leeds never lost at home to Salford at any time during the 80's.

If the chequebook isn't neccessary does that mean the signings of Senior and Ellis weren't neccessary either?

Who mentioned necessary? I said its' no guarantee of anything.

Explain how signing anyone in the world would "guarantee" we don't lose the WCC, lose to Saints in the CC and lose 2 league games on the trot.

: Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:46 pm  

tvoc wrote:

The right player (the current England first choice right centre) became available last week. Was GH in there like a shot?

...and he's improved Wigan's results how?

Maybe GH wasn't in for him because of the reasons Smith was quick to get shut of him?

: Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:48 pm  

Matt23 wrote:

I don't know but I can guess...

a) We are tight and don't like paying transfer fees.
b) The rumours are truer (or more believable to the club) than we think. (It's not like he doesn't have previous for being a t*t).
c) His wage demands (compared to what Wigan may (or may not) be giving him, were way too high.

We've lost 2 international players (Ellis & Toopi) and replaced them with one (Buderus). Add to the fact we've lost Scruton, the recruitment of another player before the end of the season is vital IMO.

But this brings the question, do we want an out and out centre, with big wage demands and the reputation for being abit of a liability off the pitch?
Gleeson would have been a nice signing in terms of balancing up the side, but I also feel we're very lightweight upfront now.
Like I said I'm 50/50 on this issue, but I think we're a big lad light upfront, and would prefer to see money going on that, than Gleeson.

I don't think tight can be used against GH in regarding transfer fee's we have over the years probably paid out as much as any other club.The rest I agree with you.

: Tue Apr 14, 2009 6:50 pm  

Longun wrote:

I'd have been interested in signing Gleeson for Leeds, but certainly not for £100K and Mathers!
Wigan once again showing their desperation, although it hasn't donw much good. It's the coach Wigan have, not the players!

How much did Wigan add on top to offload poor old Richard?

It'll take Gleeson more than a week to have an impact on that shower from Wigan but they had a really tough programme at Easter (unlike some) and didn't look that bad against decent opponents. Catalans in particular are everything Leeds aren't at the moment and that is dominant in the pack.