Understand what you are saying. But surely, if these two were "prized assets" and WE initiated the process for financial gain, then we would have been looking for far bigger fees than Red suggests we obtained? Compare and contrast the Fielden transfer, where the sum involved WAS massive? And, when the history books come to be written, the Fielden deal was probably up there with the Newlove deal in terms of importance to the club, I suspect.

Conversely, if THEY initiated the process (and I heard from the inevitable "good source" that Hape wanted out to Union some time before he finally went) then we'd be looking more at making the best of a bad job?

While we are about it, what was the tale with Robbie Paul?

I sort of understand that players DO get transfer-listed, but in private; and the agents get busy (and richer). Suspect its more relevant to seeking to offload players deemed to be surplus or underperforming though, in which case I suspect any fees might if anything go the other way?

He was offered to Wakey at the start of 2005.

I was getting more at whether we were talking transfer fees (in either direction...) - any info?

With regard to Sam, I don't think anyone would deny him the opportunity to head to Aus.
If I was him I'd jump at the chance too.

Why did we have little choice, they had a contract to play for us and we in return pay them. They should have been made to see out their contracts and then gone onto elsewhere, otherwise they shouldn't have signed them in the first place. I don't buy into the argument that if a player doesn't want to play for you he wont give his best, most professionals player will always try their best when wanting out even if it's just for their team mates.

As for the timing, I couldn't disagree more, in Hape's case last year we were badly lacking star quality in the outside backs yet we go and sell our most dangerous back without adequate replacements already in the squad or being able to bring in a adequate replacement either.

Same with Les, we had nobody within the squad capable of replacing him suffieciently and he was still running tries in for fun and from anywhere right up to his departure from us.

RER, if you cite Les and Shonny as evidence of being a "selling club" then it's your definition that is wonky.

Les we got all his best years out of, and then he decided to quit pro rugby and sensibly eke out some extra well paid Union years. And of course another key point is he decided to switch codes. It is hardly as if we "cashed in" on him in a "Fielden to Wigan" sort of way, is it? It is a "fact" that we sold him, but this is not the sort of "selling" we are talking about, surely, is it?

Shonny had also given us stalwart years of service and by all accounts his knees were suffering. HE too took the Union dollar and we should not begrudge either of these 2 lads, indeed far from being a "selling" club it would have been pretty damn churlish of us to even try to stand in their way.

You need examples which are at least close to the definition.

No he was offered straight up no compensation.

Sorry FA but where have you got that from. I've never mentioned us been a "selling club" my response was to Adey's question nothing more.

Presumably to offload salary cap (or otherwise) spend then. Thanks

Ah OK my bad

I don't fully agree with TerryM's post but I can understand where he's coming from.

wasnt robbie offered as part of a swap deal for ellis?

Reardon and Langley.