I suppose also it depends when other players' contracts are up, as you'd probably want contract expiries to come up in a staggered fashion. A risk if everyone is on a one or two year contract, is a lot of players are then out of contract together, which means a lot of them are starting to think about options elsewhere at the same time, which may not be ideal for general focus of the squad. And then if one year quite a few of them sign elsewhere then you might not want to have a mass exodus on your hands so could end up being held to ransom by others whose deals are also up.

So I can see some logic in locking some players down a bit longer.

Great business for me

I'm chuffed Jack has signed a new contract.

He's still young, 27 in January so a lot of good years ahead of him. This year he was only behind Daryl Clark on our top tacklers, and 4th in number of carries. Very hard working, and a player team mates will appreciate.

When the numbers of interchanges are going down you need more players who can go 80 minutes.

In 2017 he kept cutting inside rather than going himself or using team mates, which he has done this year. In 2017 he was sometimes moved into the centres as well, either starting there or after a reshuffle, which didn't help.

This would suggest that in 2021 our first choice second row will be Currie and Hughes. That's ok but it doesn't fill me with excitement. Currie and Bateman would. Or Currie and Livett realising his potential.

Livett is a very average player for me. Hughes’ defence gets him above Livett in the pecking order with Livett bottom of the list of backrowers we have

Quote: Winslade's Offload "Clubs are not a charity and will not offer terms that are more generous than they think a player is worth (and that includes the element of contract duration as well as salary). '" That's why the Matty Russel contract was baffling. Granted a lucrative 3 year contract for 2017,18,19 then binned 3 games into the 2018 season under Price after the howlers at Huddersfield and Widnes. I think we will still be playing part of his wages through 2019. So the club has form for lengthy contracts for players which turnout that no other SL team wants. (I'm not suggesting it's the same for Hughes as he is a solid if unspectacular SL 2nd rower). Source: https://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/ne ... xtensions/

Quote: Winslade's Offload "Clubs are not a charity and will not offer terms that are more generous than they think a player is worth (and that includes the element of contract duration as well as salary). '" That's why the Matty Russel contract was baffling. Granted a lucrative 3 year contract for 2017,18,19 then binned 3 games into the 2018 season under Price after the howlers at Huddersfield and Widnes. I think we will still be playing part of his wages through 2019. So the club has form for lengthy contracts for players which turnout that no other SL team wants. (I'm not suggesting it's the same for Hughes as he is a solid if unspectacular SL 2nd rower). Source: https://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/ne ... xtensions/

Hughes isn't Russell.

A lot were saying things like "I think I'll take TS's opinion on Russell over idiots on a message board".

Some odd signings then.... Taylor Prell.

Not a quote "" I read or said.

Believe me. During April/May/June when the ones wanting TS out were getting grief/banned on here.

I wasn't banned or getting grief.

Tony Smith has gone, he is now irrelevant to current signings or future ones.

I don't suppose any of us knows for certain, but I had always imagined that contract extension discussions would have taken place between the CEO and the coach. Actual monies that could be offered would mainly come from the CEO / accountant ( with his salary cap spreadsheet), together with implications for the rest of the squad ( "sorry, but that would mean you have used up the salary cap if you give him £xx"icon_wink.gif. However, contract length would mainly be a decision of the coach ?

So I don't think you can say our club has a policy towards short/long contracts. A three year contract is probably Price saying this guy is an important member of the team and I want to tie him down for the foreseeable future. I suppose it could also mean that they have had to offer him three years or they would have lost him to a competitor, but it probably arrives at the same conclusion anyway - that Price wants him.

If you don't like the contract duration you can either blame the current market - where there is a severe shortage of quality SL players, or Steve Price's judgement. Just as TS was rightly held to account for handing out a long contract to Russell. Why he even gave Russell a new contract, let alone a lengthy one, is probably one of the greatest mysteries of the modern game.