Don't like winter especially the dark nights..and certainly not a fan of Christmas glad when boxing day arrives and can have a horsey and football bet

Yes, it looks like the only way to move King on permanently, would be to pay him off after his 1st season back with us, using the Marquee rule.

Doubt if we would though, there is too much money involved.

More likely to loan him to another club, to see out his contract and subsidise the other club for doing so.

That way King`s wages are all loaded onto the other club`s Salary Cap.

Why are we so set on moving King on?

I agree. Keep him. He can cost very little on the cap and despite his weaknesses is still a half decent centre by todays SL standards. We could, however, sell him to Souths as they’ve just had a ‘bring your dog to training’ day….he’d fit right in.

You may be confusing him with a certain Mr J Monaghan!

He is keeping his place in the Wigan team which recently looks much stronger. To buy 2 new centres would be a hell of a risk as we are all well aware that not all new players live up to their billing.

I hope they cleaned up after their dogs in a responsible dog owner way, otherwise.............

I don’t mind King. He’s actually quite good. But, he’s being paid a fortune by all accounts. Loopholes on the cap or not, the club are still paying that money if he stays with us. Big money needs to produce a big impact. King does a lot well, makes meters, good off-loader and is great in kick chase. But if you lined the players up on ability to impact results, he wouldn’t be in the top 3,4,5 positions where his pay would put him.

That said, the loophole means we get a good centre in at peanuts on the cap. So there’s motivation for the coach to keep him, motivation from the board to move him on. The ball is in King’s court to make himself look value for money.

Just pulled this from the recruitment thread, the majority of people are using hindsight in their opinion of king(Powell disruptions notwithstanding) this was the type of stuff that was getting posted at the time when his contract was up, we finally get a good academy player (and he was unstoppable at the start of that season) and they leave to sintellins.

Same stuff as what's been posted about Clark going to saints, if we'd given him a new contract you'd have the same grumbles after the fact.

I'm struggling to think of a game where I felt he was really good! I've always felt he had potential (and still do) bit I don't think he has taken the chances he has had personally.

No chance saints would be interested given what he has shown, unless it was a cheap punt on a younger player with potential to cover their 2 first choice centre options.

It certainly would be ironic if King gets a winner's ring from OT this year & Clark gets one next year.

Interesting interpretation but inaccurate... I made observation to the fact he would be picked up and utilised by one of the other top clubs....that is a certainty ...The lad doesn't need a contract payrise ... We need to make use of him during his existing one to prove his value or otherwise ...if he goes that's not hindsight.. that's just repitiion of poor recruitment and retention decisions which the club are culpable for

Given that the chances he has had have been in a team that was underperforming his strike rate of 12 tries in 27 appearances isn't too shabby. We are still persisting with matautia who has crossed for 6 tries in nearly 2 full seasons with us and is a turnstile in defence.

Is this the type of thinking that got,Patton, Livett, and King new contracts, and almost got Longstaff one (I admit to buying in to Longstaff despite FMC’s words of warning).

Where's the reference to new contract??? ... Again to reiterate I have suggested we use him within his existing contract rather than just sideline to see in regards to his value going forward rather than just let it go somewhere else ...we give established players all year to do not much such as matautia but won't take a punt on the potential of the young players