A certain amount of market value does come from how the players perform in front of the cameras and how the players are perceived by the television audience - do you think Sale's £200k offer for Denny Solomona had nothing to do with his performances on Sky, his spectacular leaps in front of camera and the amount of airtime he was given?

If in analysis Clarke chooses to downplay his players errors and sell up the good things they have done (which is perfectly plausible) then he could quite easily be using his position to paint the players he represents in a better light - however glib you choose to be about it it does represent a conflict of interest.

I'm agreeing with you. Sale based their offer to Cas based on Phil Clarkes commentary. I also know for a fact that when St Helens players contracts are up for renewal, Cunningham watches re runs of Phil Clarkes commentary to decide wether or not to renew.

Regards

King James

No I'm agreeing with you. A complete refusal to accept reasonable arguments in order to maintain some ridiculous facade of a persona is definitely a valid debating technique.

If you genuinely don't believe that what amounts to free advertising on the games biggest platform can represent a conflict then you're as stupid as you seem.

I'm being called stupid by someone who believes Phil Clarkes commentary has a bearing on market values of players

Regards

King james

No you're absolutely right, exposure and prominence never has any impact on value. You've won me over with your cogent arguments.

I can't decide if you are just trolling me or that you genuinely believe club management take into account what Phil Clarke says on TV when deciding how much to offer a player. It's as though they would include quotes from him as part as their due diligence! I get that he might influence fans who don't know much about rugby but to suggest his commentary influences management in any way is just ludicrous! Half the time he doesn't make any sense anyway!

Regards

King James

Easy.

He makes money from being an authoritative voice in the sport of rugby league, arising from his position as a title-winning club captain and international, and he enjoys high status in the game. As a result, he acquires a job commentating on the sport and offering opinions in a column. A spokesman for the game on a major sports website.

At the same time, he has a financial interest in a company that is acting in direct conflict with the interests of that game, and in fact his client (and as he is a director and shareholder, Denny is "his" client, as he will appear on the company's asset list) is being sued by the game he purports to represent due to a deal organised by his company.

Because of this, Sky Sports should no longer pay him to commentate and offer opinions on that game. He has an opinion column. It has been noticeably silent on the issue. For instance, what credibility will he have when he ponces about pre-game at Wheldon Road, waffling about how much he loves games at Cas?

Signing off your opinions in a ridiculous fashion does not give them greater validity.

Oh the irony.

So anyway, Denny Solomona

He didn't play against Toulon. Anyone know why?

People seem to think it's an issue with his visa? Aside from that, not a clue.

I see Sale have ironically sacked a player for unsportsmanlike behaviour

Sale rested quite a few players as they couldn't make the next round of the competition.

If or when Phil Clarke does turn up at Wheldon Road give him hell. I used to like him, not anymore.

Will he not be there Friday???

I hope he is.