I’m a huge fan of Clark, and we missed some of his direct play at Wembley, but I’m not convinced that we’re a worse team by letting him go. I think LTS’s point is that we let a great player go, and our intentions were to replace him with Brad Dwyer. I think we can all agree that the planning of that is mind blowing.

I’ve said before about Sam Powell and how I was unimpressed at first but can see the impact that he is having, I would question the logic of not starting him though. He’s a tight defender and really effective at slowing momentum, but doesn’t really offer much in attack. In the games that matter at the back end of the year (if we can avoid a slump…) I would be tempted to start him, try and get some control of the ruck speed and let Walker loose after 20/25 mins and try and change the pace.

But back to the point at hand, Powell was apparently available, and we all knew it when Leeming signed. But we went with Dwyer. LTS’s point about illogical recruitment is valid.

Fair enough but this isn't what LTS posted, it may have been inferred.

For a start he states that the club replaced Clark with Dwyer which in turn shows the Club's apparent lack of ambition that we've had for the last ten years. This isn't the same thing as "illogical recruitment" and so isn't a valid accusation IMO surely the Club decided that Walker deserved his chance as a starting 9 and the rest follows on.

BTW we have had plenty of examples of illogical recruitment, (it's part of who we are unfortunately), but I don't think that this is it and for the record I'd have preferred Clark to stay on but as an interchange.

I’m guessing you haven’t seen many Leigh games in the last few weeks.

Don’t get me wrong UR, I would love Clark to be the bench man and play 10 minutes at the end of each half, but he’s not that player. He’ll want to start, want to get in the England frame and he’s not doing that as a back up.

And RD, I’ve seen quite a bit of Leigh actually this season, and Dwyer has been fine. But still very ineffective in defence. No doubt a live wire in attack when the packs on the front foot, but let’s face it he’s no better than any other 9 in the competition. By that I mean that if they swapped him with Matt Parcell, Chris Atkin, Sam Powell even, those clubs would feel short changed. And they aren’t in the top bracket of hookers. He doesn’t appear to be a leader of men, no real kicking game, even his distribution is hit and miss and that’s the principle job.

This BW sums up the point I was trying to make and where LTS's post falls down (IMO).

We (the Club) surely didn't come to the conclusion that we would all be better off 'just' swapping Clark for Dwyer.

I'm not sure what it is I've said wrong.

Clark leaving was a financial decision. The club offered Clark a 2 year deal and wouldn't give him 3 years. That is 100% true. The club wanted to keep him but not at the expense of a 3 year deal. The same thing happened with Chris Hill.

They therefore, by not offering Clark an extra year, allowed him sign at Saints who were offering him 3 years. When it became apparent that he had agreed a deal at Saints, the club then chose to sign Brad Dwyer.

I don't see how the statement about Walker subsequently then becoming our starting hooker holds any relevance or significance. They still replaced Daryl Clark with Brad Dwyer. Burgess didn't rate Dwyer and then signed Sam Powell to replace him.

At times we have 13 players on the field who are ineffective in defence , such is the hot & cold nature of the squad.

Spot on.

I like Powell but I'm taking Clark all day every day. He was an absolute machine for us who always gave 100% and ran his guts to water every week, often playing through the pain barrier, the ultimate professional and always reliable. If there's anyone that deserved re-signing over the last 10 years it was him.

I'd say that we replaced Clark with Walker, (promoting him to starting 9 or not guaranteeing Clark a start take your pick) and replaced Walker with Dwyer subsequently Powell, it's not quite the same thing

I agree in principle and think I've stated this earlier in the thread but I'm not privy to the finer details.

Whilst any contractual arrangement needs to be fair, it does need to suit both parties, ultimately the Club needs to assess against the needs of others and the squad as a whole salary cap, future recruitment, and player development from the junior ranks.

clark had a good game for saints at the weekend, i've watched all their other games, he's been on the bench, i'm far from a massive walker fan, but i'd rather have walker at the moment, than clark for 3 years.

Also, the usual suspects who are complaining now, would be the first to jump on the club, if we'd signed him on a 3 yr deal, and he was e. as i've said before, with some people, they just can't win.

just to say, powell's better games for us have been when he's been playing 13, as first receiver/link man, and probably a better person shifting the ball than currie has been.

I would have rather had Walker starting and Clark on the bench.

Nah there wouldn’t have been many people miffed off with Clark getting another deal. It’s hardly comparable to Ratchford being offered another deal say.

Wasted Dc at Wire, he had all the necessary tools to be a world class player, unfortunately Wire dinner give him the opportunity to showcase himself. It was the right time to let him go, he had looked knackered for about 3 years now.

One player who my mate reckoned Wire should have resigned was Blake Austin, he said Austin would have been a brilliant 13 for a couple of seasons.

nah, size wise maybe, he didn't want to tackle and he was incredibly rigid in terms of game plan.

And looks a better 13 than Clark is when Walker came on.
At least he seems to enjoy the role when moved from 9.