Disappointed and puzzled by this, but hopefully money will be well spent on forwards

I certainly don't think he was the reason for any upsurge in form, although he certainly contributed.
Where i do think he will be sorely missed is, from his distribution from the deck which was better than Aiton IMO and in defence where he was better than Wood, again IMO.
If Aiton improves his distribution (he will be truly one of the best players in SL) and if Wood improves his defence, Agar will be right and we will have two decent hookers, we cannot afford three, especially if we are looking at bringing some of the youngsters through top the first team.

All the above is your opinion - now I respect your opinion as you know. However it has proved in the past to be wrong as often as right, just like the rest of us.

Personally I feel Aiton is better than Ellis and with a much more organised side around him next year will prove me right, but hey.

This stuff about Ellis starting the revival is an utter myth IMHO.

All this is opinion and that's fair enough. However as I did earlier in the thread have to pull you up on the statement that Aiton isn't a hooker. Sorry Belly but that is a very poor comment and beneath you. If you think Ellis is better that's fine, but to destroy a players reputation in a position he has played most his career including at International level is a bit out of order.

Ellis played a solid part in, but was by no means the orchestrator of, our excellent winning streak; for that he has my gratitude and respect. He took his chance when the first choice (and better) hooker was injured and he did a good job.

It's a bit disappointing to see this 'face didn't fit' nonsense that some people are peddling though; if anyone genuinely believes that Agar would ditch a player who was needed purely out of vindictiveness, then they need to give their head a shake. He's ditched a player in a position we're overloaded in, to make funds available for improvements elsewhere. It's not personal - it's business!

I've stated my opinion on the situation earlier in this thread that our revival was a general improvement in the team rather than an individual.

I would have liked to have kept Andy and I think him rotating with Paul Aiton would have been dynamite but I think the reason to let him go was simple and certainly not sinister. My opinion is that it was not a case of his "face not fitting" but simple economics. Whilst off the field we have improved we are still not able to pay to full cap yet and we have a good hooker in Paul Aiton and back up in Kyle Wood and Mattie Wildie and so Andy was allowed to go to Feathersone as we simply could not afford him and Paul Aiton. The money saved will be chanelled into strengthening the team where it needs it the most - simple.

Best of luck to Andy, Featherstone have certainly got a good one but we have to look forward and wait and see who we sign.

I really can't understand the face doesn't fit comments.

I'm sure Agar isn't in this to make friends.
I'm sure if he didn't particularly like Tomkins or Roby, but they wanted to play for us, he would still play them. It's about winning not liking people.

Equally if the best player somehow doesn't fit the team dynamic, then sometimes they have to move on. Same in all working life. The team is everything.
That in this case includes having too many tools and not enough different types to be able to do the job.

Sorry for Ellis and glad he is sorted, but Agar is clearly trying to create the best team and this is how he sees it working, in both cost, skills and longevity.