posted this topic a month r go..apparently hes taken some time out to sort his self out ?
but dont be supprised if he dosnt return to league ? theres a strong link to yawion with sale sharks !!
we are lookin abit thin in the centres/with carmont n gleeson we were lacking pace,and we have looked vunerable down the right flank over the past couple of weeks ,i dont think joel is the answer ! thoughts .......

Good to see your on the ball. Why dont you look a few threads below and see a massive discussion on Glesson.

Deacon and Finch would be the half backs if Tomkins remained at 1.

How is it being nosey a fan wanting to know if a player leaving frees up some cap space? It's exactly the kind of things fans want to know for obvious reasons. Every time a senior player leaves you can guarantee there is speculation as to how much money it will free up.

I'd like to think because the statement includes he has gone for a disciplinary problem he won't get a penny and the club has his full salary available. The fact he himself has expressed his gratitude to the club management makes me doubt that is the case.

The money for Hock's return must have already been put aside as it was known he was returning before all this with Gleeson started.

You would presume this was the case. Ergo there has to be room for a new signing to replace Gleeson. However, I am not really sure that there are any top class centres out there who we could pick up mid-season. The squad we have currently is the one we have to rely on to win anything this year.

The WEP has a little more to addThe Evening Post exclusively revealed yesterday that the two parties finally reached a settlement over the weekend after a month-long stand-off.

Warriors wanted to ditch the player after a second disciplinary offence, but the 30-year-old dug in his heels as he had two-years left on his deal.
'"

Hull will be his next club, so I am told

If he had been released for that reason you would be right but he clearly has not been given the clubs statement on the reasons why he has gone.

Also if the club had been able to sack him they would just say so and Gleeson would not be quoted saying nice things about his departure.

I think it's pretty obvious given the newspaper comment he's had to be paid to leave.

Who cares ? Who really cares now he's gone who really cares if any money passed between him and the club he is now off the wage bill and free's up squad place and cash for Mr Hocks return.


and for those who do care been on twitter from claire from wish fm he's training with barrow raiders

Hock's cap space was already there. If they're paid Gleeson off then we can't get a replacement. If no money has changed hands then we can get a replacement.

If we're looking for a new centre, just wait until the Bulldogs lose and Jamal Idris falls out with his team mates again. He's a huge centre, who scores for fun, bit like Pryce but can tackle, is consistant and keeps his bottle.

Why not?

Any money paid to Gleeson remains on the wage bill that is why it matters. It would free up a squad place but compensation counts on the salary cap.

Here is the bit from the RFL's rulesWhere the proposed transaction is the termination of a Playing Contract with
one of the Club’s existing Players, as part of which the Club proposes to
make a new payment (in a lump sum or in instalments) to the Player that was
not provided for in his Playing Contract or other arrangements (and therefore
was not previously included in the calculation of his Salary Cap Value) (the
“Termination Payment”), then the information provided to the RSCM must
include a proposed compromise agreement between the Player and the Club
(in the form of the RFL’s standard compromise agreement as drafted from
time to time) setting out full details of the agreement reached, including full
details of the Termination Payment. If termination in such circumstances is
approved by the RSCM, the Player’s original Salary Cap Value shall
thereafter be disregarded for purposes of calculating the Club’s Aggregate
First Tier Liability and/or Aggregate Second Tier Liability. However, save
where Clauses 6.1.3 or 6.1.4 applies, the Club shall retain a Salary Cap
Value for that Player for the remainder of the term of his old Playing Contract,
being the Gross value of the Termination Payment, spread on a pro rata
basis over the remaining term of the Playing Contract, notwithstanding that
the Player may no longer be registered to play with the Club.

Comment to Clause 6.1.2
So if the club paid him say an £80K termination payment and given he has two years to go on his contract he would count against our cap for two seasons @ £40K per season (or some ratio like £20K this season and £60K next given we are part way through the season).