Please can someone explain the logic of the above in general in such a high risk physical sport as Rugby League? It is obvious that by year 2 motivation levels injuries etc are bound to kick in and you are stuck e.g. Huby
The only way there is any point is to tie down an outstanding young individual so that another club has to pay a fee if they want him or to tempt a standout player from another squad? Am I missing something?

You are looking from it from the clubs interest only. There are two parties involved. If there are a number of clubs interested in a player then a long term deal is a way of winning signatures. Many players move home when they sign for a new club- or sign for a club on a long term deal within commutable distance so they don't have to. It's about security for them and their family. If players have to uproot their families it involves uprooting from friends and support networks and removing their children from schools or nurseries where they are settled- wives may also need to find a new job. If you were looking for a new job Would you rather have a contract for a year or 4 on the same terms?

Fair point i dont blame the player for signing it we all would no benefit to the club at all though in modern sport highly unlikely the same coach will still be in position therefore the new coach will be left with players on big deals and no wriggle room on the salary cap. ( where have you heard that one before)

we gave brierley 4 years, may have been what clinced the deal

put them all on 1 year deals!

Huby signed a 4 year contract and now looking to move him on. Check on the Players game time would be advisable, value for money ? When the Club decides to get Rid, a Contract is worthless. New Coach clean broom as we have just seen that.!

Who says we are trying to get rid of Huby?

Look at Brett Hodgson only being on a 2 year contract. If the club had given him a 4 year contract then he'd still have been there and helped us kick on even further than he had done, instead he went to Warrimgton and helped the a great deal. It's a risk in pro sport. If the player is injured all the time then it's a bad deal for the club, if they stay fit and play well it's good business. It's a risk you take and one I'm all for.

Lots of if buts and maybes! Best case scenario we manage to take a talented player and lock them down with us. Providing a safe future for the player and team built around the same key players

Worst case we spend loads and get stuck with a player who isn't motivated as he doesn't need to go out and earn it as he is safe for four years!

Or is it a case they ain't worth what they are written on?

There's players who you give 4 year contracts to and there's players you don't Gaskell is one you don't

Obviously he is one you do !!!

time will tell

Ok I'll rephrase that if your an idiot you give him a 4 year deal

bit like hull kr with campese and lunt, where has that got you

Maybe he is speaking from that experience.

I am amazed that Gaskell got a 4 year deal out of Huddersfield. Especially when you consider just how much of his career has been spent on the injured list.

Wonder if Theresa May could get Gaskell's agent to negotiate Brexit on behalf of the UK?