If we resign Bailey, it would seem likely that at least one of Ambler/Amor won't return. Otherwise we'd have 7 props (Peacock, Leuluai, Bailey, Kirke, Moore, Ambler and Amor) plus Singleton and Pitts. Even excluding the last two, you don't want 7 props in a squad of 25 or thereabouts.

i think were all being abit hasty judging him before hes even pulled on a shirt , on the subject of a 3 yr deal could it be a case of him not taking up a very large chunk of our cap maybe at 30 yr old hes sacrificed a larger some of money for a more secure longer term future with one of the most financially secure clubs in

SL

Just had a look at the Opta stats on Richard Moore - apart from a good number of offloads he misses more tackles, makes more mistakes and gives away far more penalties than either Ambler or Amor. He doesn't make up for the mistakes by making more average metres than our current squad. Darrell Griffin makes more metres and has missed less than half as many tackles so will at least not weaken our defence in the way that Moore may do.

Moore has bags of potential though and is only 30 years old.

I don't actually mind Moore as a player but agree it's another bloody crap signing! We are going backwards no doubt

But Moore should move us forward? That's his job.

Going backwards from being the dominant team in the competition and champions in three consecutive years. Who would have thought it?



Surely the only way from that position is up.

Ah Andy, that's not fair and you know it. Nobody is expecting to win it every year but what's happening to us isn't just "not winning it" is it.



Do you think GH actually looks on here? I know somebody from the club does occasionally.



I've always had GH down as a clever man. He surely must've known how the signing of Moore would be received? As many have said, he's not actually a bad player, he's just so far from what we should be signing it's untrue.



It's obvious for most to see that, challenge cup win or not, we're going backwards. Surely GH can see that too? I just don't know what he's thinking. It has got to be the case that there's something we don't know that means it is his best interests to have a quite season or two? That's the only thing I can think of. Let's face it, the man knows HOW to run a Championship winning side, it would just appear that, for whatever reason, he's choosing not to.

I'll ask you a similar question I posed yesterday to someone else (nantwichexile I believe).



If Leeds were of the opinion they needed to recruit a front-rower for next season, who should they have signed that would have been available without a significant transfer fee?



Bearing in mind the way the club has had its fingers burned with overseas recruitment in the last couple of years, where should they have been looking other than at a player of proven SL ability who was available on a free?



Rather than saying what the club shouldn't have done and constantly carping from the sidelines, give us your informed opinion on what they should have done instead.

This one is easy...



I totally agree with what you're saying about picking up Moore, who I've said isn't a bad player, for free.



What Leeds SHOULD'VE done instead, is marketed Moore as such, and NOT introduced him as a "replacement" for the better & younger Burgess.



Headline similar to... "Leeds bolster the pack with experienced Moore", then use words in the article like "squad", "depth" and "injuries".



The problem that most people are having, is that we've lost a 24 year old, improving, best years ahead of him prop (albeit for reasons uncontrollable by us) and gained a 30 year old, best years behind him prop INSTEAD. That's the key bit there. INSTEAD. That's where the "going backwards" bit that people keep mentioning is coming from. Had we signed Moore, cos he was cheap wages, and free transfer AS WELL AS replacing the aforementioned 24 year old, improving, best years ahead of him prop with similar, then that would be going forward.

At risk of labouring the point - does this improving, 24 year old, available prop we should have replaced Burgess with have a name?

That's not my job is it?! I don't watch every game of rugby with the intention of deciding who to recruit.



Can you really not comprehend why replacing an outgoing player with somebody older, and not as good is seen by many as a backwards step?