Souths have got a coaching vacancy haven't they?

Problem solved.

I can't see the club being stupid enough to go into the 2010 season with the backs currently contracted to the club and no new signings. That'd leave us with only 6 backs who've made SL appearances in double figures.

Clearly, we need replacements for Jeffries and Tadulala (if he goes). But that would only leave us as strong as we were last year (which wasn't strong enough).

In the forwards we've already replaced Morrision and Newton. Obviously the club see Olbison or Whitehead covering Cook's loss. Less obvious is who we've gone for to replace Solomona, the lack of gamebreakers in the side now is a major issue.

As for Burgess, that's the elephant in the room. If he goes before 2010 then we're a prop down and simply promoting Crossley won't be good enough.

So far I'm not liking how things are shaping up but we'll have to see how things pan out in the coming weeks.

No, John Lang is head coach now.

I would suggest that it would more than likley have been Burgess, when we signed Glenn Hall, but that now looks to be in jeapordy.

Would you rather see us sign a few bog standards like Paul King as an example and attempt to sure up the expected hole left by Burgess' departure, or would you prefer us to head into the season a little bit light on experience knowing it would force our hand into blooding some youngsters?

Sadly I do not think that they are that desperate.

If we do sign players like King it'd show how much the club has been wrong footed in its planning by Burgess leaving given that they'd be forced to choose between players who may not be ready or players who aren't of suffcient quality.

I'd rather see us sign a top quality replacement for Burgess. If that's not possible due to players being unavailabe it's a more difficult question.

On the one hand signing players like King would provide some depth to the squad. Blooding the youngsters is ok but there often comes a point where they need a rest and we need to be careful we don't burn them out or expose them to being in a poor side too much. The likes of Lilycrop, the twins and co are the club's big hope for the future. If we ruin them too early we blow the whole project.

Losing Burgess is a bigger blow than losing Vainikolo, Hape, or Fielden. We got the best years out of those players whereas Burgess is just beginning his career. I can't help but wonder if he'd be so keen to leave us if we we're contesting finals.

It just goes to show how important it is to have the right balance between bringing through the young players and having a some good senior players. At the moment we run the risk of being exposed because that balance has been skewed in the favour of longer term planning.

In answer to the question I'd say it depends on the sort of players we can bring in. If it's players like King then I don't like it but I'd say we have little option given the danger to promoting a bunch of kids too early. Ideally they'd get the first opportunity with the "Kings" as back up.

If Burgess does indeed go then the club should be made to explain why they are persisting with the "Building for the Future" line they keep trotting out. To claim that you are building for the future then selling the main foundations of the future plan seems to be a contradiction of the highest order.

I've got a horrible feeling Paul King and/or Chris Feather are on the way/way back.

Heres the latest! www.totalrl.com/features/content ... tcat_id=49

Heres the latest! www.totalrl.com/features/content ... tcat_id=49

'A substantial amount'

Well given the fact that Fielden was sold to Wigan for almost half a million with 1 year remaining on his Bulls contract then you would have to hope that Peter Hood would be asking for quite a bit more dollar dollar bill ya'll for Sam Burgess.

All these reports are just being regurgitated, bu why his Hood talking to the Aussie press and not the fans of his own club?

A very good question.

Because he knows he doesn't have all the right answers!

To be fair Fielden was pretty much at the top of his game, whereas Sam still has to really prove himself, will the bunnies stump up 'A substantial amount' for a potential but not proven world class player? I think 500,000 $AUS is optomistic. I would love to know what figure Mr Hood has at the back of his mind.

While he may not be able to say much on the progress of the Burgess deal it seems we've now got confirmation that there is a release clause in his contract. Is this the first time we've actually had this confirmed?

The club need to keep pushing the line that they will be strengthening because it gets overshadowed with every bit of Burgess speculation.

I didn't try to tell you, I did

. The theory was based on talking to Duffy, and Sam Burgess himself (and bolstered by talking to Caisley IIRC) - not concrete proof but it seemed from speaking to them genuine enough to me. Now, one of the many reasons you and have our differences of opinion on here Eddie is, I feel, you like everything to be clear cut, no shades of grey. If Burgess liked Mac then, he should like Mac now, and it should rule out the possibility of moving on regardless of all other circumstances. I am one of those annoying shades of grey individuals, and so allow for the possibility that outside circumstances plus perhaps even a shift in the relationship between SB and SM could easily account for SB going, especially when it is to an Australian club co-owned by one of the biggest Hollywood stars of the last decade (if it was to another SL club you would have more of a point).

Short version - wind your neck back in.

I don't often disagree with you Sam, but I don't think the club deliberately neglects the first team for the sake of the youth (even though they've some times made statements that could be read to imply that).

It's the many statements they've made about the increased time and money spent on the youth side of things that caused me to come to that conclusion.

We only have a finite amount of cash, we've not spent up to the cap limit for some time so t in comparison with previous years there must be more resource going into longer term projects than has been the case before. Given the subsequent decline in fortunes of the first team it's easy think (correct me if I'm wrong) that the club have chosen to take the hit on first team performances in order to put things in place long term.

I don't have a problem with that until the hit taken becomes too great. Finishing outside the eight and having a situation where we could end up with an even weaker first team in 2010 is a symptom of getting that balance wrong IMO.

It will hopefully all come out in the wash. I'm reminded of how similar we are to Leeds in 2000/01. Their best forward departs for Australia. They sign two Aussies, one crocked another with a dodgy temprament. They go into 2001 and get smashed. Behind the scenes they have Sinfield, McGuire, Diskin to come through in the next few years and the good times return. Are we set to follow a similar pattern?

You could say it makes a bit of a mockery of things when we can read this in Sadler's Rag but not hear anything direct? Maybe Sadler's lot rang Hood after the Oz press reports - it sort of reads that way given the wording of the article. And maybe this is Hood using this as the means to communicate with the fans? Hmm.

The above confirms formally for the first time (?) the existence of the NRL get-out clause. Other than that though, what does it tell us? Those words could be equally applicable to a done-but-not-announced deal as they would to an impasse.

No further forward in terms of resolving the speculation. I would be very surprised if there was not good reason for that. As others have said previously, we can't really judge until it IS all resolved and we see what the club has to say then. That could prove to be a pretty crucial announcement, if the supporters are to be kept/brought back onside - IMO.

Nice analogy. I take your point re: the balance, though it's hard to judge when we could only ever expect to see a positive result from the youth policy start over the next couple of years, while the 'eye of the ball' on the first team's impact would always be immediate.

Understand the general gloom on here right now. Looking where Catalans are now, it's a shame we didn't get that final eight spot as a counterbalance.

Perhaps SM is only interetsed in teenagers, or those who are way past it but still resemble teenagers?

So McNamara was pretty much the main reason he wanted to stay just over a year ago (alledgedly) yet now he is desperate to get away at the earliest opportunity? (alledgedly)

Seems an awful short period of time for attitudes to change so much.

Personally, I just wish we would hurry up and bring closure to this sorry affair. Nobody is covering themselves in glory here at all and the sooner it is over with the better.

However, yet again, the club seem to be making another PR disaster which appears to be commonplace these days.

Did you see that drop goal against Hull?

Was I the only one to read Hood's comments reported in the T&A the other day, and sense we might not be getting as much in the way of new signings as we expected, and may end up promoting more youth earlier as a result? ust from the nuances in the wording.

The comment about Semi's future being tied up in a coupe,of weeks, when we were told before it would be end of last week, made me wonder if we had missed out on a signing and had gone back to Semi with an improved offer.

All wild speculation at the moment, and I guess arising because too few people trust the club? Its getting more and more like Substandard in the the "Believe Leeds" and "Hetherington's Sleeve" times on here every day. If the end result though was how it turned out for Leeds, I guess we could live with it...

I'll keep this short - the club is the club. Handwring all you want but unless you know better than me, it's Hood or nothing.