Your information isn't just outdated, it's b0ll0ck$

And yet proved correct before it was announced

. Like I said, you are entitled to your opinion, wrong or not.

Kirke may not be a good player but he's as a good a source as any to speak about the post season departures. If he says himself and Bailey were told at the same time very late on then what's makes this untrue?

After the CC win we still had the potential to do the treble, or at least the double. Going by previous years does anybody seriously think GH would've made these changes had we claimed another GF win? Hell no, he'd be boasting about it being the single best season ever and why make changes to such a successful team.

What happened in the league and playoffs forced his hand though. Even though we had poor league placing a in '11 and '12 he could say they did the job in the playoffs....hell even in 2013 he could say they improved to 3rd and reached the final eliminator. But how 2014 finished left quite a lot of angry supporters and to quell the anger and think about season tickets for 2015 he couldn't leave the squad the same so he let some of the scapegoats go.

I mean what has been arguably the biggest gripe with fans for the last few years? That the likes of Bailey and Kirke clog up the bench whilst youngsters don't get a chance......so what happens when he knows he needs to get fans back on a board? Gets rid of the deadwood that many fans have wanted rid of for a while and keeps harping on about and signing up youngsters to new deals.

Their departures were completely a result of how the season ended.

This seems a more plausible explanation for me - if Bailey knew he was out then it seems odd it took him so long i.e. April to November to find another club. Also I don't see any reason for Kirke to disguise the truth? If rumours are to be believed Leeds have been trying to move Bailey along for years so why tell him in April he was history yet continue to pick him over giving youngsters valuable experience?

I'm still here. Sitting. Reading. Judging.

well if they were trying to move Bailey on for years then why did they keep offering him contracts? I wonder if he was disciplined when he missed training ?Final warning?I thought it was interesting what Delaney said when Bailey signed for HullKR 'I think this move could do his career a lot of good'

It should be. He always got the "only decent because he's at Leeds etc" noes a chance for him to stand on his own two feet, away from his comfort zone and I think he'll be just fine.

As a general point, I think Kirke came far closer to fulfilling his potential than RB. In a way, that's a shame but it's one of the reasons I'm reluctant to criticise Ian. I think he did his best.

I don't think it will change anything with great impact.

Addressing bigger problems has yet to be overcome.

Reliant on JP - still a problem.

Kylie still playing - still an issue. (we tried and failed to sign Mossop, which shows we need a hole to plug. but yet to do so.

Then the replacement of the spine (mcGuire, Burrow, Sinfield).

Next year would we be happy if we just moved on JJB? No. bigger decisions need to be made.

Exactly!

And with McDermott at the helm (alongside Peacock and Sinfield at least) can we see these decisions being (wheels?!?) made?

Interesting times of cyclical decline ahead

Mac: Promote from within www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... eds-rhinos (if the signings you attempt to make fall through)

Mac: Promote from within www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... eds-rhinos (if the signings you attempt to make fall through)

WRT signing Mossop, I reckon we've dodged a bullet there. As for promoting from within, I'm not sure that's the best source of quality props. It's an issue that both ourselves and wigan (probably the two sides with the best recent track records of unearthing young talent) have struggled over. And while our prop situation may look a bit dicey, I think wigan's might actually be worse. Whatever, it's surprising that between us we haven't produced more in the way of decent props.

I think it's a symptom of how the game has changed in the last few years. You can't get away with playing young props much anymore, the need for such strength and bulk can't be safely put on by youngsters. I think we'll see youngsters moving up through the pack ie from loose/second row to prop, as they get older rather than being a prop their entire career. I'm sure there'll be exceptions to that but I reckon they're few and far between.

A lot of players get binned at 19 which is as a rule before most of them make it as props at 1st team level. A lot have to go via other clubs to get a chance to come through. I wonder how many are lost completely.

It's hard to call at such young age. John Bastian admits he made a mistake in allowing the Burgess twins to leave Leeds.

Would Jamie Peacock have come through under the present system? At 19 he showed no signs at all of the quality he was going to become.

Spot on Bullseye. The current system isn't good at all for the future.

The Dual Reg system was supposed to take up the slack but it hasn't been fully accepted or utilised yet (understandably in some cases).

As you say under the current system Peacock would have been binned by Bradford.

I've always thought it'd be too costly for clubs to run a reserves team and whilst I'm sure it would for the "poorer" teams, I wonder how much it would actually cost to run and whether the top 8/9/10 clubs in SL could actually afford it?

If they could I think we have to do it, it's either that or fully integrate some Championships clubs with SL clubs as feeder clubs like in the NRL. As I firmly believe it's the NRL's biggest single advantage over SL.

I agree the departures we saw won't change things too much. When fit the 17 will look like the ones that contested the CC semi and Final but with Cuthbertson and Ward/Singleton in place of Kirke and Bailey.

It was however the only realistic changes he could make at that time.

It's only a small things in the grand scheme of things but I would imagine most would be a lot more annoyed/underwhelmed if we started this new campaign with a subs bench that once again consisted of Bailey, Kirke & Clarkson.

I agree. Kirke has been a good servant to the club over recent years, with several coaches picking him to perform a particular role in the team. Whether this role was either necessary or better filled by another player does not diminish his contribution - you can't blame him for being repeatedly picked, and the same applies to Bailey - whatever the fans might think of their efforts.

Proof that a paleo diet must send you a tad daft