Crikey mate, let's see who gets brought in instead of going over old ground with Hampshire or whether giving Brough 2 years was right or wrong. We've obviously got a number of more signings to make, lets wait & we might be pleasantly surprised about who they bring in.

Ateotd, not every deal works out perfectly but MC & CC have got most calls correct as far as assessing a players value, contract length etc and making the right calls.

His preference is for Hampshire before Brough yours clearly isn't, does that mean that your opinion trumps his, you say Hampshire isn't the answer stating that Brough like the rest of the team went through a bad patch, perhaps you'd like to remind us the last time Hampshire had a bad game never mind a bad patch.

Oh and one last thing you mentioned Wane and Powell, the last thing Wane did before allowing Hampshire to go to Cas on loan was to make him sign a new deal at Wigan, and as far as I'm aware apart from the new contract at Wigan being a sticking point both Hampshire and Solomona had the same agent and because of the Solomona debacle would not deal with Hampshires agent. Hth.

I have no problem with Hampshire, he had pace and he gave 100% each game, however he seems to have a problem with new contracts, it’s obvious he thinks he is worth more than Trinity are offering, we went through the same process last year when he didn’t sign until late. I don’t think he has done himself any favours by selling himself through media releases.

Can we have the lottery numbers while you're at it

Hampshire isn't the answer......he's left. Get over it and support the club. HTH

Agree.
At least we now have two genuine FB's in Walker and Jowitt, let's see if some cover comes for HB from elsewhere.

I've said many times that I like Hampshire as a player and he can cover numerous positions.
However, he has been offered a contract in each of the last two seasons and not taken it, wanting a better offer on both occasions.
Now, NOBODY can blame anyone for wanting more brass but from Trinity's point of view, I'm sure that they made an offer which they believed was fair and they gave Hampshire a deadline, which passed without Hampshire taking the offer.
Of course, none of us know what happened in the interim period as regard contact with agents, the player and the club and it's always sad to see any local player allowed to leave but, what are the club supposed to do.
Should they "cave in" to higher wage demands, which would give them problems with other players somewhere down the line or, should they cover their position with a different player ?
Walker from London, looks like a useful FB, maybe better in that position than Hampshire and if this proves to be the case then, where is the problem ?

Out of interest, if you were picking the team and putting the squad together, would you offer increased contracts to every player that knocked on your door and risk Trinity going bust, again or, would you rather be a bit canny in the transfer market and balance the books.

I know which I would do.

I’ve no great wish to perpetuate this fairly pointless debate but...

I’d say your right, Walker looks more accomplished at FB than Hampshire who was not a specialist FB and always made it clear he wanted the HB roll.

Walker looks more than capable of playing on the wing, far more so than Jowitt who looks more like a possible S/O.

Hampshire definitely offered a HB option that Walker as far as I’m aware doesn’t. However we don’t know who the other potential signings are and until we do I’m not sure we can really comment on losing Hampshire potential at HB. We may end up with a better player in that position.

One thing seems certain, Hampshire feels he’s a HB, many fans do, however none of his coaches since joining the senior ranks seem to think he is which begs the question what do they know that we don’t?

We may lose an individual talent in Hampshire but on the other hand we may end up with a better balanced team.

Having given significantly improved deals in the last 12 months to Tom, bill, Reece, Dave, woody, and T and offerred numerous deals with minimum 20% increase to said player, I’m at a loss as to what else the board is expected to do, whilst balancing the books?

No dispute from me Michael that you have assembled a very good squad whilst putting the club on a stable footing and you certainly have my thanks for that. The players you mention are all key players for us and certainly worthy of their new deals.

My personal opinion (and it is just that) is that the 2 year deal for Brough was a mistake (certainly a year too far) as I would imagine we have a reasonable sum tied up in that deal, which would have been better spent on retaining a versatile player like Hampshire and a new (and much younger but still experienced) HB than Brough.

However, I confess I do not know who the remaining signings are and when revealed, they may mean that my view on retaining Hampshire change

Nothing, I think most of us realise that.

Frankly I’m far more interested in who’s coming in not who’s going out. Personally I support Wakefield Trinity, not Rayan Hampshire, not Dave Fifita, not Michael Carter (no offence).

I’ll be there in February or whenever it starts and I’ll be supporting the 17 players on the park wearing the RW&B and I’ll start making my own judgements from there for what they are worth.

Good luck for next season and I’ll be supporting the club as best I can.

Thanks for the insight. I think the club did it's best working within certain constraints to retain RH. Club moves on.

It would be interesting to hear your definition of ‘reasonable sum’? This is at the heart of all discussions regarding whether a player is value for money, and yet no one knows a players salary, and therefore, surely it follows that it’s very difficult to say whether a player is value for money or not without that information wouldn’t it?

We really need the Hampshire entourage to let go now and move on.