Just a press statement covering the rear Wakefield issues,Of course wer'e not going to state publically were once again in trouble with payments especially when the Super League licences issues are arising.

The lad was ready to play several days before the Salford match until the club told him he was leaving and NOT the Giants have recalled him.

Can’t think of a reason why Huddersfield would cooperate in such subterfuge. He was going back to them anyway and have no reason to keep Trinity sweet, besides, if he came as part of the Brough transfer then were they not paying his wages?

Think what you will but only the 2 clubs know what deal was done in writing and and i'm sure we didn't get Danny Kirmond for nothing,Only quoting what a senior clubman(coach) at the Galpharm told myself with regarding the deal being cut short.

Can't say who's wrong or right but it seems a bit iffy to let a player go when he's on a loan deal until the end of the season.

At the end of the day he's still a Giants player and i'm sure we just offered him back as our play-off campaign was cut down to wimper.

I agree with you entirly, i cant see why huddersfield would effectivly forgoe 10k as we are led to believe for him to play in a coupple of games.

If it does turn out to be true, which i very much doubt then maybe it was good business by the club, why would we want to pay 10k for a palyer to play in 1 meaningless game.

Same thing - it is an agreement between the 2 parties.

Why, if you think the club wouldn't want this announcing, would you immediately come and put the 'news' on a public forum???

I'm sorry, I just don't understand, although if it's come from a coach at Huddersfield then it must be true!

I don't think anyone is saying we don't need cash - and if we are paying for a loan player when the season is gone, it seems sensible to let him go back to his own club.

Time to start looking forward and not raking over the old coals.

You are Sherlock Holmes! I claim my £5.

As previously stated this was a loan agreement so even Wakefield were paying Kirmond's wages it would still only be a percentage of his contract. If they were unable to pay him then good business would suggest that he would have been recalled much earlier (by mutual agreement). Huddersfield would have nothing to gain by leaving him at Wakefield for a nothing game with the possibility of him being injured and unavailable for them through their play off campaign. Although it is well documented that our current chairman is in financial trouble, there is no reason why a senior coach at Huddersfield or in fact Danny Kirmond would be party to such information.

Just for clarification Kirmonds loan agreement was until the end of the regual season with the option of an extension if the play offs were reached. If money was the real reason as suggested I would like to add that the figures don't really add up.

By my understanding the figure needed was £10k (give or take).

1 League game remaining and possibly at best 4 playoff games, meaning we paid a loan player about £2k per week. Sorry I really don't see it, if we were paying that kind of money then surely common sense dictates that if you are struggling financially you get rid of what you don't need to be paying for. If the cloak and dagger story is true why wait for so long, why not action it sooner??

Great thread. We do have some of the best 'supporters' in the world don't we?

All fair points and probably right.

Iv'e just heard too much bad news with regards our club over the years with financial issues that nothing suprises me anymore.

Fair comment - but although we know things are tight, I am also aware of the efforts to make things right, or as right as they can be. Business as usual then!

I am pleased that it is 'business as usual' but it was slightly surprising that Kirmond did not make the 17 for The Giants in France.
Until there is some positive news it seems the rumours will continue to circulate.