I'm keeping my powder dry on this until I see what the club plans to do in response to Burgess leaving early - if it happens.

That's going to be the key, it's going to take a heck of a deal to keep fans positive though.

If it happens, I can think of three contrasting precedents.

Hanley - we took the money, signed some inadequate replacements and carried on down a slippery slope.

Newlove - we played our hand beautifully, and created a championship team.

Fielden - we made the best of a bad job, steadied the ship financially, and didn't visibly affect playing strength (though, to be fair, more due to Fielden's deterioration than to any resulting acquisitions on our part).

I can't see it being a Fielden (as I don't think we'll get a large enough monetary sum from an Aussie club). For me, acquiring, say, Kearney, Walker and Reardon would be 'doing a Hanley', while acquiring an international class direct replacement (such as Moi Moi), plus three backs (including at least one three-quarter and at least one half-back) at or near international class, would be more like 'doing a Newlove'. Like you, Sam, I'll neither condemn nor praise till I know which it is.

Errm, is Burgess one of our best assets when he's on the field, was Vainikolo, was Fielden, was Hape...err yes they were.

So by your definition by selling a single player, any single player, you therefore become a "selling club" . . . . . . ? ? ?

I know we've done the Sam thing to death elsewhere.

I suspect that a number of people on here are just going to have to agree to disagree on the rights and wrongs of Sam's departure / what Hood meant when he spoke of not being a selling club.

I think TM has made his opinion known on this issue often enough. I'm surprised people are being suckered into a repeat!

I don't make the defination of 'selling' up Bullpower.

I didn't say we are not and are not going to become a selling club and then proceed to every last bit of quality we have. That was Peter Hood.

If you sell your players, then you can't be anything else but a selling club.

Shame really because it's just another thing Peter has assured fans that we wouldn't do after he told us we wouldn't break the salary cap again and then did so the very same year and a year later.

Nobody is being suckered into anything Bully, we're talking our differences.
Suppose we could all agree though, wouldn't that be nice?


Relax your good self, kidder.

Isn't an asset something that is worth money? So that would make him an asset.

If this is officially announced without anything positive on the signing front, then I see big problems. I only hope they have something up their sleeves to try and make this a little bit easier for the fans to take.

Come, on, you are reverting to your old ways on here - shame, I liked this much more reasonable version

For the avoidance of doubt, the principal reason we broke the cap was the treatment of Harris' image rights. We broke it again the following year because the payment for those was a contractual commitment, and we were well through the following year before the breach was determined, by which time it was too late to fix it. And the contract with Harris, including the structure of the deal which clearly included the treatment of image rights being paid by a supposedly independent third party, was signed under the Caisley regime not Hood's. The Hood regime was left to sort out the consequences. And since that must have meant a reduction in player spend elsewhere to accommodate the Harris payments within the cap, is it any surprise we had less to spend?

And we only broke the cap two years not three. And at the time Hood said there would likely be consequences for the then-current year too. And I have explained above why that was so.

And come on! The whole board can see that you are being disingenuous with your "selling club" comments. You've made your point, as you had every right to and as Bullseye and MDF so rightly say, what happens next (if Sam does indeed go) will determine what the fans make of it all. You may even be able to tell everyone you told us so - although don't take it personally if I speak for most of us in saying I hope it does not come to that and we do indeed sign some quality.

I like to hear a differing opinion but when the argument is a repeat of one earlier in the thread it becomes a little tiresome!

Just chill your self pal, I'm saying what I think, by all means argue against me. Or if you don't want to or don't like what I say then don't read it or don't get involved if you don't want to. No problem man.

Thats the point. Is it because the club seems to have adopted the air of no ambition.

It could be interesting to see what League Express and Sadler come up with on the story from Aus and if they have managed to obtain any further comment from The Hood.

With regards players wanting to leave, most had spent a long part of their carears at the club and won everything there was to win. A new challenge and chance of more cash meant they moved on. Only Sam has wanted to move on early and thats to move to another country! At the time of Fielden leaving he had gone to Aus rather than Wigan we'd of had all the same debates we've had here.

I'm not too concerned about the ”sales” in previous seasons and don't believe we are a selling club. We're not pursuading our stars to stay though and that is an issue.

After Sam goes we have no marquee player left in my eyes. Who can we use to sell and promote the club?