To be honest, I can't see the owners being prepared to pay a fee. It's pretty obvious they thought Dane was a free agent and had severed his links with the club (or more properly that Sheffield had severed the links with him). Given how we've been so far, I'd guess that only his wages had been factored into the 'can we or can't we equation' and that any extras would probably end our interest. If he really is still contracted to Sheffield then his contract with us would surely be void anyway and my guess is that we'd just walk away.

I would guess the wage structure is very tight at Odsal and it won't cover signing fees. I wouldn't want them to pay anything but I do still expect to see him. We are probably missing out on a few decent signings simply because the owners are sticking to their wages policy. Annoying, but I can't see what else they can do. Signing one player on substantially more than the others could cause really bad feelings within the squad. I am thinking possibly Bailey here - may be wrong!

Well if it is the case that Chisholm's contract runs out 1st May, then I think we can wait it out rather than pay up two weeks worth to Sheffield.
To be honest, we need reinforcements up front as the games over easter showed that we're lacking in that department. Hopefully now easter is over we can get back some of the lads we had earlier in the year without the likelihood of them getting recalled to their parent club

Suspect you're right about a tight wages policy, but can't imagine players are bothered about what the others are on - to be honest, it's the way of the world and everyone knows how it works in pro sport and a top 'show pony' will always get more than the 'grunt men', even though both are needed. It's simple supply and demand and it was ever thus.

Well documented that Jamie Peacock's nose was put out of joint by being told they couldn't afford to give him a pay rise, only to later sign Iestyn Harris on silly wages.

It is the way of the world, but that doesn't stop people being annoyed if someone who they perceive as not as good as them, is paid more than them, even if they essentially do a different job. Lord knows I know how they feel and that's just in a normal workplace.

Not sure I see that being the case with Chisholm as he's apparently very well liked by the team

Basically, Jamie wanted a pay rise ( and deserved one, imo) from what I remember reading his book, his complaint was about not getting what he felt he deserved and chairman Caisley then allegedly telling him to go forth and multiply, if he didn't like it, (except he didn't say 'go forth and multiply'). Jamie said he felt "disrespected" and wanted to leave. I'm certain Jamie was fully au fait with the fact that a top halfback will always get more cash than the best prop, though he may well have been annoyed that the club hadn't budgeted for a rise since his deal hadn't been updated from before he became a GB player.

I would find it very hard to work out the value of a player ONLY in terms of their wages.
If I were the Bulls chairman would I sign Ryan Bailey and pay him twice that Young Bentley + a few other youngsters are on?
I can see how this could cause heated arguments in most sporting boardrooms in the world.
It is eased if you are rolling in cash but if you are us, then it must be a real problem.
We need to keep the youngsters but we really could do with two experienced props.
When money is involved friendship usually gets forgotten if your mate is on more than you for basically the same job.
Tough decisions that most supporters never have to make. All we can do is complain whichever way the chairman goes.

Ultimately it comes down to supply and demand. Far from the fairest way to judge 'value', but it's just the way it is. Both are just as necessary for all teams, but the more omnipresent grunt never gets the same reward as lesser spotted flair. Just as in all forms work, I guess.

Suspect bailey would want 3 or 4 times what some of the young 1st team guys are on .the u19's have had their £45 winning pay stopped do I don't think there's much in the kitty.

Is that why they've stopped winning?

That's not good

They're asking people to train full time for no guaranteed income.
That's absolutely ridiculous!

Doesn't bode well does it? Already trying to scrimp on basic things like win bonus and guaranteed pay. For a pro club to do that, it sounds like there's isn't much in the pot. Or that the pot is in already glowing red.

I do hope all this is just rumour.

One thing we won't get is any clear statement from the club, or any statement at all. It is really worrying.