When writing it I did get the sense of pulling the pin and waiting for the grenade to go off but sort of thing that I don't get from our side at times

Which is better though, a 2 year contract that the player honours, or a 5 year contract where the player leaves after 2 and the club get hundreds of thousands of pounds of transfer fees in the bank? If the ultimate conclusion is the player leaves after 2 years then surely its the latter?

What's the price of fan disillusionment? If getting those £££'s means the fans lose faith (as is alluded to in this thread) then it can do more harm than good in the long run, and the club would be better served with the contracts fulfilled, even if it means losing out on a transfer fee?

I'd rather see the first option. Strength and dominance on the pitch opens doors off it Imo.

Exactly how I see it. People only see the negatives of the current situation, and ignore the fact that it makes the club a hell of a lot of money. Plus surely us providing a pathway into the NRL actually makes us quite an attractive proposition for a lot of players, if that means we unearth the next Tomkins then he gives us 5 quality seasons then so be it

IL I believe is doing what is best for the club.

Hypothetically of course as very few people know what is discussed but I'd think certain recent contract negotiations have gone like this:

Player - "I'd like a 2 year deal as I'm looking to try my hand in the NRL in the future"

Club - " how about we agree 5 years with a clause saying you can leave to a non SL side after 2 for a reasonable fee and we will allow your agent to look for a move. This also gives you the security of a contract if no move happens"

Best of both worlds for the club and player. Security for the player and money for the club. I'd love to live in dreamland like some on here but we have to be realistic and aware of the draw both financially and professionally of the NRL and other sports.