Or possibly we would of got nothing for him come the end of the season?

I think it's highly unlikely that Martin Gleeson was moved on for financial reasons. I think yet again here, we're in danger of turning what was a positive (The club acting, and getting rid of a player who was not fully commited to the cause, after years of tolerance of player mediocrity) and turning it into a negative as if the clubs in some sort of financial ruin and had to cash in quickly on an asset, I just find that farcical.

If the club were to make savings on the playing staff, I think there's tonnes of wise this could be done, you could get rid of Pickersgill, Louis Anderson & Reardon say, and not replace them as such, just promote Neal & McCarthy and it not effect the squad hugely whilst saving yourself probably £150k plus per year.

I think as a club, we'll always get alot of mud thrown at us given our investment, high profile we have when linked with players in Australia, Johns £10k a game saga etc etc, the trick is to shrug it off and concentrate on the facts.

We would have got nothing for Gleeson anwyay if he had carried out his plan to play out this season and look for an NRL club in 2010, the deal to Wigan seemed to happen very quickly for whatever the reasons, like i said previously i`m just putting forward one possible reason from many possibilities as to why he moved so quickly.

Clubs don`t make a habit of letting their best players leave especially mid season unless something is forced on them, if you remember Bradford let Stuart Fielden leave mid season and i would say that was mainly down to Bradford being in financial trouble at the time and the money was too good to refuse in their situation, maybe we have a situation with these new tax laws... Who knows as i don`t.

My own opinion for what its worth is that it was a Tony Smith decision to release Gleeson, anyway its all guesswork as only Tony Smith and our club know the real reasons.

We bring in £100k after spending God knows how many times that over the past few years, and we are in trouble!

Mr Tickle has just put his hand through the letter box and his working his magic.

Possibly. But the part of my post that you highlighted is still correct - there's no evidence whatsoever to support the contention that we're in difficulty financially. In fact, if we were in the proverbial, I very much doube we would have signed Mathers.

Plus Simon Moran although not a bottomless pit could surely afford any back dated debt and still have enough for a new Bentley

I personnally beleive that its Tony Smith that has made this decision, the club with its sentimental tendancies (not at all an attack on the club btw) would have no doubt let him play till the end of the season and then look for alternative options. Smith has no reason for sentimentality. I beleive Tony Smith has seen an opportunity to stamp his authority, start to rebuild the squad and also make some money for the club and for his future rebuilding. Smith strikes me as a man that beleives in the "greater good" and whats best for the team and the club, therefore offloading a player who doesnt want to be there and making a few quid of the back of it is a no-brainer.

must be rubbish as we passed the finance section of that checklist plus i'm sure profits last year tipped 100k plus gleeson money

I can tell you for certain were not in any financial difficulty.

Can you tell me for certain that I am not in financial difficulty?