Have I got this straight. You're complaining of reading it's drivel but have somehow still managed to dredge up a post from 12 months ago without doing so.







Is that also a sly dig at Gilder?

Thanks TVOC. To be honest I realise I can never win against those (there's at least one other cohort of course) who will go to such extreme lengths, in both time and energy, just to prove their own perceived superiority....but every so often I stupidly get embroiled. Doh !





Not quite sure whether refering to me as "it" is an attempt at humour or insult.....either way it's a little feeble (IMO of course).



Yes I am guilty of making posts that were perhaps knee jerk.....but never expected them to be later used in ammunition against me. ( I feel like a politician

)



On last night's game dare I suggest we badly missed Buderus. There were also a host of bad decisions (not least the "double movement" that wasn't) from both the officials and our own players; bombed chances, although I think the second 'drop' by Hall was a little harsh to be put in the same context considering he had Fox nearly pulling off his head....and a superior kicking game from HKR (reminding me of our win over Saints in the GF where we constantly kicked early) ...all contributed to our downfall.

Yep! Was forgetting the Harris saga. However, I still think an unhappy player is not worth holding onto....but I agree we should do all we can to encourage (not force) him to stay. He does seem to be worth the effort based on the few opportunities that we have had to see him in action.

I don't think the Harris saga was ever really about Gary Hetherington wanting Iestyn Harris to return to Leeds to play and was much more about his personal feud with the then Bradford Chairman Chris Caisley and extracting compensation from the Bradford club.



I just don't see Leeds ultimately standing in the way of any player wanting out from the club, although I would expect them to get the best deal possible in doing so.

Just one question. I'm not up with the rules on overseas players, but I thought the whole point of Eastwood was that he had a Biritsh passport (eventually) and was somehow off quota? Suggesting the idea of replacing him with any old Aussie wouldn't be possible.



BTW from what I've seen I'd suggest that he joined Leeds for the money (he basically said as much in an interview before he left Australia) and as tvoc (IIRC) said I don't think he actually thought Leeds would ask him to fulfill his contract. He also whined about money around the WCC didn't he? If he wants to go, let him. Team spirit's very important, particularly to this team.

If Eastwood wants to go he should go. I have had too many years of lazy foreigners taking the mickey out of the team i love. If They do not want to be here then let us negotaete their release and black mark their name foreveer.



Those who chant his name are not true supporters and any true fan should turn their back on him when he enters the field.



Looking at his comments in the press he should be booed from now on.

Quote BrisbaneRhino="BrisbaneRhino"Just one question. I'm not up with the rules on overseas players, but I thought the whole point of Eastwood was that he had a Biritsh passport (eventually) and was somehow off quota? Suggesting the idea of replacing him with any old Aussie wouldn't be possible.'" You're not alone. According to this: www.superleague.co.uk/page.php?id=346 The quota is set at 6 for the 2010 season where Leeds have 7 contracted so obviously one or more is exempt. The quota then drops to 5 for the 2011 season where Leeds have now contracted 7 for that year so again now two or more of the existing 'overseas trained' players are already exempt. As the only 'overseas trained' players Leeds have signed since the new criteria was adopted are Brett Delaney, Danny Buderus and Greg Eastwood I suspect they could be the only ones not currently exempt. A RFL measure initially introduced with the best of intentions for the British game has actually led in the short term to a potential increase in the numbers of overseas trained, with clubs extending deals of aged antipodeans as they are off quota rather than trying to replace them from a limited pool of UK trained players. I think it's about time the RFL published each SL club's playing squad with their relevant designation under the quota rules.

Quote BrisbaneRhino="BrisbaneRhino"Just one question. I'm not up with the rules on overseas players, but I thought the whole point of Eastwood was that he had a Biritsh passport (eventually) and was somehow off quota? Suggesting the idea of replacing him with any old Aussie wouldn't be possible.'" You're not alone. According to this: www.superleague.co.uk/page.php?id=346 The quota is set at 6 for the 2010 season where Leeds have 7 contracted so obviously one or more is exempt. The quota then drops to 5 for the 2011 season where Leeds have now contracted 7 for that year so again now two or more of the existing 'overseas trained' players are already exempt. As the only 'overseas trained' players Leeds have signed since the new criteria was adopted are Brett Delaney, Danny Buderus and Greg Eastwood I suspect they could be the only ones not currently exempt. A RFL measure initially introduced with the best of intentions for the British game has actually led in the short term to a potential increase in the numbers of overseas trained, with clubs extending deals of aged antipodeans as they are off quota rather than trying to replace them from a limited pool of UK trained players. I think it's about time the RFL published each SL club's playing squad with their relevant designation under the quota rules.

Quote It is all speculation. I haven't spoken to anybody at all from Canterbury, or anybody in Australia.Meanwhile, Rhinos' management insist they haven't spoken to Canterbury Bulldogs about a swap deal which would see Leeds forward Greg Eastwood return to his former club. Reports in Australia suggest Eastwood, who is currently on Leeds' casualty list due to a knee ligament problem, is keen to re-join Bulldogs – with former Australia Test back-rower Andrew Ryan moving the other way. But Rhinos chief executive Gary Hetherington said: "It is all speculation. I haven't spoken to anybody at all from Canterbury, or anybody in Australia."'" www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/l ... 6413795.jp

Quote It is all speculation. I haven't spoken to anybody at all from Canterbury, or anybody in Australia.Meanwhile, Rhinos' management insist they haven't spoken to Canterbury Bulldogs about a swap deal which would see Leeds forward Greg Eastwood return to his former club. Reports in Australia suggest Eastwood, who is currently on Leeds' casualty list due to a knee ligament problem, is keen to re-join Bulldogs – with former Australia Test back-rower Andrew Ryan moving the other way. But Rhinos chief executive Gary Hetherington said: "It is all speculation. I haven't spoken to anybody at all from Canterbury, or anybody in Australia."'" www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/l ... 6413795.jp

I saw that aswell not exactly dismissing the idea of Greg leaving like both the club AND player did on the website when the rumours 1st started after he'd broke his wrist.

Watched the Storm v Bulldogs match at the weekend and Ryan looked good.



Not a flair player but a full 80 mins workhorse.



Always near the play the ball and good backing up looking for an off load.



Good passing game from either dh or when joining the line.



Overall maybe a good deal if transferred for Greg due to the amount of game time we would benefit from.



Still I don't want one viewing to influence any decisions.



I will watch this weeks NRL game to see if he can put in the same effort on a regular basis.

i noticed Hoffman is being heavily linked with Wigan as part of the storms 'cost cutting' excercise.