Totally agree the sun is a load of crap most of its lies and entertainment for the reader

I am one of john's biggest fans and love the idea of him (been an homegrown player)compared to the likes of andy farrell, but surely if we have to sell him to help save the club then its a no brainer . At least if we get into this mess again he will be able to sell his challenge cup winners medals and super league winners rings to help us out ( ) before all you easily offended people comment its probably the only way in the next few years he's going to get any silverware i'm happy to follow a club of mediocrity than none at all

In that case I look forward to reading Hood refute this idle speculation and put everyone's mind at rest.

Before you say it I know the club can't be going into print about every rumour but here the chairman has been directly quoted. So if it's made up then the chairman needs to say so.

As a result of this quote everyone's getting worried, particularly so given the situation the club's in.

Time for a press release providing some re-assurance. Or if that's not possible then one saying that whoever is waiting in the wings needs to get off their backsides.

Rumours like this have dogged the club for years under Hood because we simply haven't held the initiative in the media. Frankly our communication is crap.

Beyond crap. Self destructive.

Because you don't understand cap finances?

Bateman may be on buttons so a little cap space + ability to move on a junior player could well make it easy for many clubs to sign JB. With the contract offering bigger bucks in 2013 onwards.

The Giants have never paid large transfer fees - certainly not the amount Bateman would justify -Davy does not do it.

This article looks like an agent (or possible the Bulls) trying to push up transfer fees / contract payments.

He has already said in print that other Clubs were after Bateman but that was a while back, I doubt he's spoken to any hacks recently about it, and as its the Sun it a rehash of putting 2+ 2 and coming up with 5

As ever.

Wasn't there a statement, years ago blaming the fans for the money problems? Sometimes, less really is more. That is if you can believe some of the rubbish in the papers.

Too right I don't.
But I think I understand enough to see that somethings just don't add up. So both Giants and Wire have kept enough cap space spare just in case? I don't believe it.
And does Davy paying off debts/offering sweeteners not count as paying transfer fees? Even if not for cap purposes?

The Sun gets things wrong all the time, the reporter was on twitter apologising to Richie Mathers last year for getting the facts wrong about his transfer to Wakey. Another one that springs to mind is describing Kirk Yeaman as a winger

I think this is just lazy journalism and like a few others, I wish we could handle this kind of thing better

Yeah but he's saying he's nothing left to give, something I could identify with

It's not just that I have nothing left to give, though that is pretty much true. If I had it I wouldn't give it. We've already done the "do this and we have a sound business plan to carry us forward" thing. To give to people who would do the same thing again so soon would be foolish.

Clearly you don't.

In case of what? Few clubs will be a few pennies under the cap. Many 'full cap' clubs may be 10 - 20 K below it. They may also have low contract players on £10 -20K. You move a guy onto another club and a full cap club may be able to find £30K for this year. Look at Leeds Pitts out and lunt in - Lunt's contract will be far higher than Pitts so there will have been some cap space there. Very straight forward.

The infantile myths about KD paying off debts / offering sweetners Playground gossip from morons.

We gave to address a clear and present danger to the future of the club. And without conditions, in my own case recognising that the BoD was prevented from issuing shares or anything else in exchange, because of the shareholdings of the kindergarten.

There is absolutely no way whatsoever I would do anything like that again without it being in exchange for shares (and in meaningful quantity), such exchange also recognising the money previously pledged.

The only way I could see that EVER being allowed to happen, by whoever happened to control the majority of the shares in issue at the time, would be if they were themselves unable to raise enough money to secure the club a viable future. Then they'd come running to the very last people they - any controlling party - would otherwise want to have a big say in running the show.

And, unless such action resulted in control being handed over to the supporters, bollox to it. Because if they needed share investment from the supporters to pay day to day costs because they could not cover the costs from anywhere else, it would just be another short-term palliative solution that failed to address the underlying problem - which is that competing at the top level in SL is a non-starter unless you have a rich owner.

If supporters had control, maybe a shedload of not-in the least bit-rich-at-all owners, aided by a few marginally-comfortable owners and the odd fanatic who won a few bob on the lottery, could together add up to the same as one very rich one. Maybe. If they could avoid falling out with each other for long enough and not all wanting to pick the team for the weekend. Maybe.

(I'm sure I saw something big and going "oink" fly past my window just then...?)

It doesn't happen often but we are in complete agreement.