Perhaps this was in breach of this seasons club policy.

I don't think so. It's a stand you only have to make once and tossing it off as you say, is a sure way to reduce a players value when his contract is up. Other clubs/coaches look upon that sort of behaviour very badly and it's a fact that how you play in the last year of your contract is key to a players value. On Lynch I think it's a good deal but had we refused to allow George Burgess to leave, played him as much as Tom this year there's good chance he'd have changed his mind and we'd still have both. I think this stuff about players sulking if they're not allowed to do as they like is massively overstated to shift the emphasis away from the club wanting the money. Had Lynch not tried/played well this coming season he would never have got a good move for his last 1/2 years.

On the other hand regularly accepting bids for players from other clubs sends a message to our own players to constantly be on the look out for other opportunities because if there's money it it the Bulls will not stand behind their own contracts. It also alerts other clubs (as in this case) that any/every player is for sale. This makes us look weak and suceptible to continuous gossip about losing other players (Tom to Souths etc). Overall it's a very poor standard to set, annoys the support base and is one other large clubs do not allow.

On the Sam Burgess question raised earlier, I would say that Wigan would not have allowed Sam Tomkins to have left before his contract ended. I also think Sam wouldn't have looked elsewhere had we been competetive.

the money that the club got for burgess wasnt used to replace him fair enough but i bet it went a long way to helping the training facilities at tong get finished , which are the best in the league and we are seeing other hidden benefits from that such as that young stand off we have just pinched from leeds saying that tong made a major impact on his decision to sign for the bulls , i dont think things are as black and white as " sell a player and buy another " sometimes if you look at the bigger picture , for example we now have a full squad of players using the best training ground in league thanks to the fee that we got for burgess.... HOWEVER it doesnt seem to be doing them any good does it to be honest lol

If we have managed to get 100k for Lynch , then this MUST be pumped back into the playing budget. A comment made earlier about us not being able to afford Lynch a new contract tends to say that his replacement will be on less money so in theory inferior to Lynch which is no good to man nor beast. Monies raised through transfers and put towards stadium upkeep and other costs is a dangerous road to be on. I am aware we are struggling but we have seen through the last 4 years by replacing a player with someone who is, who for want of better word, worse than the one sold then all you end up with eventually is rubbish. I am afraid we are too close to that already.
As you briefly alluded to superbulls, having the worst players in the league train at the best facilities in the league doesnt really count a jot. I suspect leeds lad felt he may have been a bit behind the rest of the leeds lads and felt he may be closer to 1st grade football here, I may be naive but i dont think he left leeds to come here because he had somewhere nice and warm to train

hmmm maybe , i dont suggest not replacing lynch at all especially not with ewan dowes ( just what iv read on here ) i think the tong training ground can only be seen as a positive thing especially when we got it from the sale of a player who... no doubt about it is world class BUT since hes left us souths havnt had all that much game time from him with injury after injury ... imagine been tight for cash like we are at the moment and having to play a world class player world class wages to sit on the sidelines with his foot in a cast, i think we did the right thing with burgess to be honest but now is definately the time to raise the bar a little regarding signings, wasnt there a rumour O'meley was out of contract this year??

I suspect the fee was somewhere between the £50k some at Hull were claiming and the £100k being talked about on here. But I did point out earlier that it is quite possible that the total "value" of the transfer was somewhat more than just the fee.

Anyway, if we are spending at/close to the cap, as Hood said we would be, then it CAN'T go back into the playing budget because of the cap. At least not the first team, although we could use some of it at the junior level. You could argue of course that it should be made available for US paying transfer fees, although I rather fear there will be plenty of other calls on it.

You would like to think they would do that. And we have had this discussion before, have we not? Some players WOULD, too. But its not like a "normal" job. Its a short career, and I suggest most would put themselves first - or their agent would tell them to. Ultimately, I'm afraid they may feel they have a responsibility to their families to maximise their income (or happiness) over the short playing career.

Don't get me wrong - I don't condone it. Quite the opposite, since they would fully expect the CLUB to honour THEIR side of the contract. But if a player chooses to put himself before club, there is sod all really you can do without cutting off your nose to spite your face. You going to make him sit in the stand, eating up your funds and salary cap? Or sack him? Given that is precisely what he wants? Its shìt mate, but its realpolitik.

I have to agree,but there is no doubting Raynor`s playing ability.Can`t see we have replaced him with anything better this last season.

This is great. We sell our best forward yet can't really use the money to buy anyone. Great work. No doubt the money will go towards fixing the toilets whilst we get left to signing a busted flush. Tip top.

Hull obviously offered the cash and bradford said sure go for it. The guy is 31. He could not afford to play hard ball at this stage. 2 years of sitting on his would not deliver a good contract in two years when released. Hull are cash rich but not player rich. They have lost fiztgibbon . glesson. long and some others so they need to fill the gaps and obviously have no one ready in the academy to play prop.

Pretty depressing day for the supporters.. losing two of our best from 2011. I'd be happy if we could replace Lynch with a tough Prop who will bust some tackles for us. Unfortunately I'm struggling to see where this replacement will come from without a guaranteed quota spot.

Raynor will be hard to replace, he has been a consistent performer who I looked forward to seeing outside a decent centre in 2012.

We could do with some positive news pretty soon. The timing of the departures just after the pledge deadline will surely leave some supporters a little bit miffed. It wouldn't be a Bull off-season without some bad news though!

At the end of the day mate, next season is a long way off and the opportunities to sign somebody are plentiful from here on. Keep your disappointment until the start of the season, then we can fully see how bad/good our squad looks

Plentiful? Can't think of many decent props just ready to be signed up.

Of course, things might well look a whole lot brighter in a couple of weeks/months time. But our recent recruitment decisions haven't been great so I am not holding my breath for a top quality replacement.

It's just so sad to see how far we have fallen in a relatively short space of time.

Lets all remember that Lynch has been the most ineffectual captain, we have had. The way he leads the team out is testament to that, this is the same guy who turned on the supporters too, telling them to come down to training when the going got tough. He's lost his go forward, his leg drive too for that matter.

He wanted another two years on top of the one year he still had, which would have taken him to his testimonial, but wouldn't reduce his salary at he reached his latter years. So the club said goodbye!

Hull FC have signed a 31 year old prop for £100k. If we had signed a 31 year old prop for the same amount we would have gone nuts.

Raynor? Must be the 'd' word, can't be any other I'm afraid. Shame cos he was our best back by a mile.