Would we have to continue to pay him though? It would be cutting off our nose to spite the face if so.

Don't think we will owe him anything tbh, but by allowing him to leave a two year contract we have done him a pretty big favour and he [morally, at least] does owe us.

If he'd come out and said, "I want to play for them", we'd have come to an arrangement with Toronto, but as he hasn't, I don't see the problem in hanging on to his registration - after all, if he's not interested in playing then he, presumably, doesn't want it and if he IS interested in playing, then we're entitled to take that into account when he leaves.

No. We don't have to pay. It's similar to a non-compete clause. I believe we did it with Karl Pryce when he first left to go play Union.

I assume Karl signed that and took it literally.

Interesting to see that Joe Keyes played at hooker for Ireland at the weekend, despite Liam Finn being in the side at 7 (Finn has played quite a bit of hooker in the past).

Perhaps Keyes would be an option if AOB was to be out, and Rohan doesn't think Lumb is up to it yet? (Because let's be honest, nobody thinks Halafihi is up to it).

I don't think Smith has an issue with Lumb. Somebody on the thread earlier hit the nail on the head imo - we're looking for somebody who can cover AOB for a 20 minute breather but be an option elsewhere on the pitch for the rest of the game, rather than wasting a bench spot on a hooker for 20 minutes.

I'm talking more when O'Brien is injured. I don't think Lumb is up to playing 80 minutes and Halafihi certainly isn't. And as the squad stands right now, I don't see anyone else who would spell Lumb.

In all honesty, why bother? He's an average Championship player, what are we likely to receive in way of fee?

In any case, his comments since leaving would suggest his attitude is one we are better off without. We saw enough players 'going through the motions' last season. We need players who fully buy into the Bulls and are prepared to show a bit of fight for the badge.

this ^

Even if we got £20, it would be better in our coffers than theirs. They certainly don't look like they'd miss a chunk of money.

I would suggest it's the principle though. As long as it doesn't cost anything to hold the registration, then it's a "We've done the right thing by letting you out of your contract early, but if you've lied to us, they can bloody well pay for you". If he never plays again, all feelings remain good and no harm done to anyone.

I agree, plus in 2018 if he comes out of retirement he could well be playing against us for a promotion rival when he should have been under contract to us. Perfectly fair to hold his registration, but Id guess we haven't.

Not sure how 'registration' works tbh. Do we actively have to do anything -eg renew it annually or something - or does the player's name simply remain on file until someone else attempts to register it for a new club?

As the old contract, ie the one we've just let him out of, would presumably be registered with the RFL, I'd guess they would look askance at any attempt to register him for a new club if his name were still down as being with us. As we found out in the past [eg Harris] there does seem to be some sort of checking going on at Red Hall.

The precedence I'd be looking at is whatever we did with Karl Pryce when he went to Gloucester. Whatever we did to hold the registration then, Wigan had to pay us a transfer fee when they signed him back to League.

Although admittedly, I'm still not 100% that it was a real thing that Wigan signed that useless sack of....

Some signing news today apparently.

If the rumour I was told last night is correct (and I don't know if it is for sure), await meltdown.