Imagine being Bateman's winger. You'd do less work than a union winger

I suppose Wigan aren't much different to us in this case.
They've got Bateman, Tomkins and Farrell already in the 2nd row, but we've already got Ablett, Delaney and Ward plus JJB.
And O'Loughlin generally seems to miss half the season through injury.

However you look at it, Ferres is a quality second rower. With JJB out till May earliest and having a very poor fitness record, we've basically got Ablett, Achurch, Delaney, Keinhorst and Walters to cover the SR, given Wardy will be playing LF and assuming no injuries.

The sleeve will obviously be in for him, but it's got to be the right deal for us. He's 29 and has won FA - he can come to the Champions on a slightly more modest pay packet or he can look elsewhere and hope money will compensate for lack of trophies.

Ward will be out for the first 10 weeks wasn't it ? Jjb May/ June and Achurch must be behind Ablett, keinhorst and a seemingly struggling Delaney (hopefully the break will have done them good) in the pecking order.
Another good SR isn't a bad call, if the deal is right.

Reading that interview with GH, it does almost read like he is putting pressure on Huddersfield and Ferres to get real, with regards ability to fit in to other clubs at this stage. And although he says we are not interested, he still builds the player up. It doesn't read the same as the headline.

That's what I thought too. Hetherington does say "we're not pursuing Ferres." But it does sound like a way of putting pressure on Hudds.

Not sure what the logic is in putting pressure on Huddersfield.
It's not as if they are asking for £150000.
They only want £50000 and if we were interested why wouldn't we pay that for him before another club does?

I think there's more to it than that. All potential purchasing clubs will know Hudds' liability on the player (4 years at about £120,000 say?) so will be pressuring Hudds to pay some of the first year's salary for Ferres.

Like anything, it's supply & demand. If there were 2 top clubs both with £120,000 available on cap then Hudds could well get more than the £50k they are asking as a bidding war could follow. However, I suspect that is not the case. Also, remember that Ferres does not HAVE TO accept any offer (so the likes of the lower rated clubs may not have a look in anyway). GH will be aware of all this (as will other CEOs) & whichever top club really wants him will play the waiting game to get the best possible deal.

Huddersfield's liability on Ferres isn't going to be four years salary though is it? If he doesn't move at some point during this season, he'll definitely go before the next one starts because teams will make space for him.

So at the very worst, Huddersfield's liability on it is one year's basic wages with no appearance, win or try bonuses. They're not as over a barrel as some seem to think they are.

What is the possibility of him still going on loan for this next season with Hudds. paying part of his wages? That then leaves the Giants with the possibility of asking a larger fee next summer and Ferres would also be able to command a higher wage with his pick of clubs due to most clubs being able to create cap space for 2017. Seems logical to me.

I'm no specialist on employment law here but I wonder what Huddersfields position would be if Ferres stayed for 2016. Would they have to play him? I'd imagine they'd have to have him train in some fashion even if it's not with the other players. I'm just thinking constructive dismissal-wise.

Nothing to stop that happening and would mirror what has happened with carney to Salford. Think gh may be getting his slant in first on the Leeds won't offload people to make room as expects a deal is close with a competitor and they will have to offload a player or 2. Agree with comments that Ferres unlikely to take any overall pay cut.

Ferres shouldn't worry too much about his salary. Chances are most of it will be going in maintenance anyway.

Excerpt from A3:5 of the RFL Operation Rules, which I wasn't aware of:

"If a player is loaned out or dual registered to another club, responsibility for payment of their salary and any appearance money they are entitled to shall remain with the Club they are contracted to. Recovery of any costs should be made by invoicing the agreed values monthly to the recipient Club. The recipient Club should ensure that these invoices are paid in a timely manner"

So presumably even if Huddersfield loan Ferres out, for cap purposes they are still responsible for his full contract but can recover some of the cash from whoever they loan him to? Which would mean that the club he goes to wouldn't have to get him in under their cap, presumably?