Quote tvoc="tvoc"Didn't you want to deselect Scott Donald for much the same reason last season when we re-visited this subject the other day? It's on the previous page if you want to have a look. viewtopic.php?f=17&t=446933&start=30 '" Not really. Three or four games is not the same period and, more importantly, I do not accept Burrows' form has been as poor as made out on here unlike Donald's form up to and including the Huddersfield game last year which was, frankly, even though I am a fan, abysmal.

Quote tvoc="tvoc"Didn't you want to deselect Scott Donald for much the same reason last season when we re-visited this subject the other day? It's on the previous page if you want to have a look. viewtopic.php?f=17&t=446933&start=30 '" Not really. Three or four games is not the same period and, more importantly, I do not accept Burrows' form has been as poor as made out on here unlike Donald's form up to and including the Huddersfield game last year which was, frankly, even though I am a fan, abysmal.

Quote G1="G1" Quote G1="tvoc"Didn't you want to deselect Scott Donald for much the same reason last season when we re-visited this subject the other day? It's on the previous page if you want to have a look. viewtopic.php?f=17&t=446933&start=30 '" Not really. Three or four games is not the same period and, more importantly, I do not accept Burrows' form has been as poor as made out on here unlike Donald's form up to and including the Huddersfield game last year which was, frankly, even though I am a fan, abysmal.'" who is this burrows we keep mentioning

Quote G1="G1" Quote G1="tvoc"Didn't you want to deselect Scott Donald for much the same reason last season when we re-visited this subject the other day? It's on the previous page if you want to have a look. viewtopic.php?f=17&t=446933&start=30 '" Not really. Three or four games is not the same period and, more importantly, I do not accept Burrows' form has been as poor as made out on here unlike Donald's form up to and including the Huddersfield game last year which was, frankly, even though I am a fan, abysmal.'" who is this burrows we keep mentioning

I got the apostrophe in the wrong place.



Great spot and great post.

IMO bluey did the right thing and let him ride his bad form out by continuing to play him, Donald is not a kid and his effort was never in question (again IMO), I believe an experienced player should be playing games to improve a temporary dip in form unless a permanent replacement is a serious option and a youngster is showing more potential in training/academy games.

If you say so.







The Huddersfield Home game was Round 16 (60% of the Regular season) and if Donald's form up to then was truely abysmal, as you now claim, were you not surprised when Leeds extended his contract rather than promoting an Academy player into the squad for 2010?



I was but not because I thought he was abysmal, I just thought that although he'd been a good player, he wasn't worth an overseas place (with the quota reducing) and I'd have liked to see Leeds promote one of Broughton/Watkins/Jones-Bishop to the number 2 shirt to further their development.

FWIW I thought Burrow had an excellent game on Sunday - hopefully this will give him the confidence to kick on.



If you want an opponent to show your skills off against then I would suggest Harlequins at home is as near a perfect fit as they come.

Except that we're back home playing on quicksand.

I hope Delaney's leg stands up to it this time.

It looked worse than ever when they showed some highlights from the Tykes game on Sunday on Look North this week



No grass just sand

I claimed it at the time, not just now. No, I was not in the least bit surprised because, as Tony points out, Donald is a class player. Accepting a player is in bad form is not the same as dismissing that player as a bad player. The latter is fekkwittedry. The former is providing an objective and reasoned analysis of form, irrespective of personal preferences. It's what separates me from most on here.





I'd like the best player available to get the number 2 shirt and Donald is head and shoulders above the juniors you mention, two of whom will be better developed in the current scenario than had we released DOnald anyway.



The quota point is a non point. We're well within it. How many spare places would you like us to keep on our quota, given your criticisms of the club last year in not filling the quota/salary cap.

Here Here.



Regards



Stuart Fielden

Even when that reasoned analysis comes down to Jones-Bishop is a 'poor' winger (without further explanation) and Scott Donald's form for 18 games was 'abysmal' (again without further explanation.)



Are you really that different.... really?







And yet you claim he was 'abysmal' in the opening 18 games of the 2009 season and should have been replaced for an extended spell beyond that by one such Academy graduate.









I'd rather Leeds stayed within the numbers prescribed by the RFL. You may take an opposing view on the matter but will no doubt still bemoan England's inability to compete with the antipodeans over a series and likely as not correctly cite the number of imports as being a factor.



My critism was never about filling the quota per se but of not spending their full entitlement under the salary cap while the squad was vulnerable due to key players leaving and not being adequately replaced, especially when the desire was to challenge on more than one front in this potentially golden period.



Leeds operated with 5 overseas trained in 2009 set against the RFL's intended limit of 8. This season they have 7 when the intended limit has dropped to 6. Leeds have done nothing wrong legally but I'd rather they hadn't found a way around the quota limit. Finding ways around limits is not the way I want to see Leeds operate. The last overseas trained player to sign for 2010 was Scott Donald.

Double Post.

yet more evidence of a personality disorder.



You really should use the internet as sybil, and not one of your many personnas.

Here Here.



Regards



Paul Wellens

Seconded





Regards



Richard Horne

Self evidently.



Which they have done.



If you want to direct such criticisms at the Leeds club you are being unjust IMO, given the number of internationals the club have produced, including those now at other clubs.



The key issue being whether they were adequately replaced. I maintained that they were. A history making 3rd consecutive championship was good enough for me and should, IMO, be good enough for any right minded supporter. Unless, of course, you consider not winning every trophy every year as failure.



No they haven't.



They are within the limit.



They are within the limit. ...and what a good job because, as some have finally realised after last Sunday, he's a quality winger and a clinical finisher and the side is weaker without him.

When I'm not getting a rise out of you, you aren't half as much fun.

It's nice to see people still think highly of us.



Regards





Paul Cooke.

Which bit?

They haven't exceeded the RFLs regulations on non-federation trained players. They are at least one player and possibly two players within it.



Therefore the whole premise for your complaint is built upon foundations that are as dubious as the Steel work beneath the South Stand.

My premise is that the 'new' quota system was designed to do away with the myriad of exemptions which had found their way into the old quota system with a generous allowance of overseas trained players initially (10 in 200icon_cool.gif gradually reducing over several seasons. In 2010 the figure fell to 6 and by 2011 it reaches it's final destination for now of 5.



I agree with the reductions and the RFL's motives behind their implementation. I also accept they were prevented from imposing the numbers as they were intending by legal judgements in favour of existing registered overseas trained players within SL.



Certain (but not all SL clubs) have exploited the legally created loophole within the quota knowing full well that increasing their reliance on overseas trained players is pretty much flying in the face of what the sport's governing body were seeking to bring about.

Which is where you're going wrong.



The new quota was designed to explicitly include exemptions and so does. Therefore, Leeds are under the quota and have not exploited any "loopholes".



I will concede Leeds have not stuck to what YOU think a right and proper quota should be, regardless of what that quota REALLY is but I don't think Mr Hetherington will take your views into account as he tries to assemble a squad capable of winning a 4th consecutive grand final.



He might have done had you been a little less negative about the efforts he went to building the squad which won a record setting third consecutive Grand Final.

The new quota was designed to remove/include (if you prefer) the myriad of previous exemptions by use of the catch all terminology of overseas or non federation trained.



There probably wasn't a supporter in the game that knew the status of every overseas trained player on their own clubs register (I know I didn't) previous to the new quota being introduced in 2008. Kolpak, European passport, residency exemptions and the like, it was an unholy mess.



The clubs understood what the RFL were doing and the likes of Stanley Gene and Semi Tadulala were not retained initially as clubs in quota difficulty re-assessed their squads. Then the courts (probably rightly) intervened and Gene and Tadulala were back at their clubs free to carry on as before.



That was not what the RFL intended. Eventually the RFL will get their quota limits but due to the unforseen action of the courts it will take longer than they initially hoped.

You have posted a lot about what the intentions of the RFL were. I do not know if you have anything to substantiate that.



All I have done is refer to the factual RFLs own present regulations which include exemptions, and rightly so.

Quote G1="G1"You have posted a lot about what the intentions of the RFL were. I do not know if you have anything to substantiate that.'" I have recollections of interviews given by Nigel Wood the RFL's CEO at the time after the court rulings that concluded with statements along the lines of 'the RFL will get their wish but it will now take longer than they had initially hoped.' This article gives some background to the move www.independent.co.uk/sport/gene ... 35135.html and it claims that the intended reduction was supported by the SL member clubs. And a case in point where the RFL had to concede on their intentions www.rleague.com/db/article.php?id=30697

Quote G1="G1"You have posted a lot about what the intentions of the RFL were. I do not know if you have anything to substantiate that.'" I have recollections of interviews given by Nigel Wood the RFL's CEO at the time after the court rulings that concluded with statements along the lines of 'the RFL will get their wish but it will now take longer than they had initially hoped.' This article gives some background to the move www.independent.co.uk/sport/gene ... 35135.html and it claims that the intended reduction was supported by the SL member clubs. And a case in point where the RFL had to concede on their intentions www.rleague.com/db/article.php?id=30697