Eastwood signs with Canterbury Bankstown for 3 years :D

[MatthewA]

Sorry that's a laugh.

As much as they might want to be big time, Jets are still the "little brother". Newcastle always has been and always will be a rugby league town. Local political parties all want him ousted? A few belligerent comments from a former-newsreader-cum-state-MP who will either be shadow minister in 6 months or worse still unemployed... I'm sorry but that doesn't equal "the local political parties who all want him ousted".

What I meant by the comment is that you couldn't picture Greenberg in that situation, where he can't work with people and ends up being hated by many. I may be painting him as some kind of messiah but the fact remains Greenberg has it all over Burro. Burro is a poor people person which is evident in the way he has run the club the past few years.

 

[Timmah]

To be fair, Burro doesn't have the same resources.

 

[MatthewA]

That's fair enough but that doesn't mean he can't have those people skills.

 

[bulldog]

LOL

So the fact that Leeds teed up a replacement had no bearing on them releasing Eastwood to you?

:roll:

Maybe, and this might just blow your mind so you might want to take a seat, maybe the fact that Eastwood had been seeking a release for some time meant that Leeds actively sought out and recruited a replacement. Kinda like us looking for a replacement for Hannant when he requested a release.

I love a good conspiracy theory, but I think you're jumping at shadows here.

 

[macavity]

Burro is a poor people person which is evident in the way he has run the club the past few years.

Ever met him?

Burro has some very powerful people gunning for him. Amazing what a nasty piece of work with an agenda and a compliant media will achieve. Character assassination for one.


@ Bulldog

Of course Leeds were seeking a replacement. They wanted a player swap.

So the obvious question is, why didn't they offer Eastwood as a swap for Cross? Or why didn't the Knights suggest that?

Why were the Knights the only club to end up with nothing, and the others get what they wanted? Are our recruitment team (Onslow) stupid, or just super nice guys?

 

[bulldog]

@ Bulldog

Of course Leeds were seeking a replacement. They wanted a player swap.

So the obvious question is, why didn't they offer Eastwood as a swap for Cross? Or why didn't the Knights suggest that?

Why were the Knights the only club to end up with nothing, and the others get what they wanted? Are our recruitment team (Onslow) stupid, or just super nice guys?

If they're just nice guys, get rid of them, you already stated what happens to nice guys.

Not sure of the background behind Cross' release, but speculation has been pretty high from early this year that Eastwood wanted to come back.


When did Cross make it clear he wanted out?

Is it a case of a Cross leaving the Knights in the lurch at the last minute to grab some superleague cash?

 

[Bulldog Force]

Ever met him?

Burro has some very powerful people gunning for him. Amazing what a nasty piece of work with an agenda and a compliant media will achieve. Character assassination for one.


@ Bulldog

Of course Leeds were seeking a replacement. They wanted a player swap.

So the obvious question is, why didn't they offer Eastwood as a swap for Cross? Or why didn't the Knights suggest that?

Why were the Knights the only club to end up with nothing, and the others get what they wanted? Are our recruitment team (Onslow) stupid, or just super nice guys?

The Knights seem to get no gains every few years. By my count, they lead the field in 'No Gains' over the years. You guys can do with a new recruitment scout IMO.

 

[Johns Magic]

Not sure of the background behind Cross' release, but speculation has been pretty high from early this year that Eastwood wanted to come back.

Yet they only finally agreed to release him after Cross, another prop, signed for them.

I think it's all pretty obvious. Leeds were far happier to release Eastwood knowing they would have a direct replacement for him. No conspiracy theory, it's just how a footy club is run.

And I don't see why it's such a touchy subject for you Bulldogs fans either.

 

[Packy]

I think we are all missing the point here...

Congratulations on getting rid of an old, injury prone, lump!

 

[MatthewA]

Ever met him?

Burro has some very powerful people gunning for him. Amazing what a nasty piece of work with an agenda and a compliant media will achieve. Character assassination for one.

Met him twice. Wasn't impressed and haven't liked him since.

Yet they only finally agreed to release him after Cross, another prop, signed for them.

I think it's all pretty obvious. Leeds were far happier to release Eastwood knowing they would have a direct replacement for him. No conspiracy theory, it's just how a footy club is run.

And I don't see why it's such a touchy subject for you Bulldogs fans either.

You're sadly mistaken.. Greg wanted to return to the Bulldogs. He loves the place. Leeds agreed to release him after we signed an agreement with Leeds. Cross then signed with Leeds weeks later. Nothing to do with a swap and it didn't impact our deal with Greg.

 

[macavity]

Met him twice. Wasn't impressed and haven't liked him since.

I call bullsh*t.

That is the sort of info that would be offered first up to substantiate your unsubstantiated claim that he is a tool.

If you are going to lie, at least do it in a believable way.

 

[Johns Magic]

Greg wanted to return to the Bulldogs. He loves the place.

Yes, so?

Leeds agreed to release him after we signed an agreement with Leeds.

They agreed to release him, but they didn't release him...might've had something to do with certain conditions being sorted out first, i.e. compensation/finding a replacement.

Cross then signed with Leeds weeks later. Nothing to do with a swap and it didn't impact our deal with Greg.

No...Cross's signing was announced within days of Eastwood's official release. The 8th and the 11th of October to be exact.

Cross's signing could only become official after they released Eastwood for obvious salary cap and quota reasons.

You really think it would have only taken 2 or 3 days for Leeds to get in contact with Cross, Cross to decide to leave his current contract, move his family to the other side of the world, negotiate a release from the Knights, the Knights to think it over and approve it, and the paperwork to be fully completed?

That all happened pretty quickly...

 

[Baron Vo Mandor]

I don't think Gary's the best player by any means but he's an honest hard worker, credit where it's due. Piss off Baron.

LOL if nothing else good to see u sticking up for ur team again Timmah rather then being a defacto dragons man.

 

[MatthewA]

They agreed to release him, but they didn't release him...might've had something to do with certain conditions being sorted out first, i.e. compensation/finding a replacement.

No...Cross's signing was announced within days of Eastwood's official release. The 8th and the 11th of October to be exact.

Cross's signing could only become official after they released Eastwood for obvious salary cap and quota reasons.

You really think it would have only taken 2 or 3 days for Leeds to get in contact with Cross, Cross to decide to leave his current contract, move his family to the other side of the world, negotiate a release from the Knights, the Knights to think it over and approve it, and the paperwork to be fully completed?

That all happened pretty quickly...

Fair enough, I thought it was a longer gap. Regardless, Leeds placed Greg on the transfer list a long time ago (the 30th of July) and would have been scouting players since then. It's no secret that we were out to sign him a long time before we did. He was never a chance to go anywhere else. For your fans, like macavity, to imply they should have signed Greg and "why wasn't he offered to us" was silly.

I call bullsh*t.

That is the sort of info that would be offered first up to substantiate your unsubstantiated claim that he is a tool.

If you are going to lie, at least do it in a believable way.

And I care if you believe me why? You asked the question I answered it truthfully. I couldn't care less if you believe me or not.

 

[Johns Magic]

Fair enough, I thought it was a longer gap. Regardless, Leeds placed Greg on the transfer list a long time ago (the 30th of July) and would have been scouting players since then. It's no secret that we were out to sign him a long time before we did. He was never a chance to go anywhere else. For your fans, like macavity, to imply they should have signed Greg and "why wasn't he offered to us" was silly.

I don't think Eastwood should have gone anywhere else at all. He's a Canterbury man and I have no problem with that.

But I think it would be naive to suggest that the Knights releasing Cross didn't help you guys finally get Eastwood.

 

[MatthewA]

Of course. But it would be the same with any signing Leeds made as a replacement. If they had of signed a bloke from Wigan as a replacement it would have helped us. But for macavity to get bitter and ask why they weren't offered Eastwood for Cross is stupid.

 

[Timmah]

JM, the objection from our corner comes from macavity suggesting the Knights are somehow shortchanged from this whole situation, which is quite ridiculous. Almost as if Leeds and Canterbury somehow bullied the Knights?

I think the Knights need better recruitment management.

 

[macavity]

we were shortchanged. no blame attached to anyone but us.

 

[Bulldog Force]

Eastwood, at prop, played very very well for the victorious New Zealand side on Saturday night. It seems his form in Australia is picking up from where it left off. Good to see Eastwood back here. Can't wait to see him in a Bulldogs jersey next season

 

[MatthewA]

Glad that the footy is over for the year (in a way) so we can look forward to next season. Bring it on!