when we first announced that we where talking to hudds
it was said it would a deal that would benifit wakefield i cant see how that has happend,we have extended the deal of a player we already have in korki and loaned a player who is just returning from a major injury.i feel that the giants cant belive there luck in loaning us one player they dont want and another who its going to take a few months to get anyway near the form he was in last season.saying that letting db go was right he didnt want to be here no more due to money to made else where i dont for a second believe that db wants to play for hudds and feel he could have made a big mistake remember he as only been a succsess under kear in sl.
i for one hope we do go out and spend db wages on a new player(i very much doubt we will)as cooke is here on newtons.

MC.TRB,

It's the amount that Brough was alleged to have been offered by Wakefield to sign a new contract. I don't recall TRB (or anyone else, for that matter) claiming this was the amount of the transfer fee. You seem a little confused...

one person who i know will not be happy about Brough turning up at the Giants is Scott Grix. Apparently he can't stand him. He wasn't too chuffed when he found out both clubs were in talks.

Send Grix back then.


Maybe JK can find a position where he can play week in week out.

not for me thanks...did ok when with us but jack of all master of none imo

I reckon common sense tells you that Boyd2 is right in what he says - think about it. We know for absolute certainty that Broughy is bankrupt - its a fact and proof is available in the public domain.

Now I am no expert in bankruptcy but I reckon its a fair bet that a condition of it is that you are obliged to pay your creditors a certain percentage of your income for a set period of time - lets assume 3 years, so say for example Wakeys offer was (complete guess work on frigures by the way):

£120k per year for 4 years, say for arguments sake (and easy rounding) that he is obliged to pay 50% to his creditors for 3 years.

Year 1 £120k Danny "sees" £60k
Year 2 £120k Danny "sees" £60k
Year 3 £120k Danny "sees" £60k
Year 4 £120k Danny "sees" £120k

Total contract value = £480k
Total value to Danny = £300k

Then for arguments sake say that Hudds offer looks something like this:

Year 1 £60k Danny "sees" £30k
Year 2 £60k Danny "sees" £30k
Year 3 £60k Danny "sees" £30k
Year 4 £140k Danny "sees" £140k
Year 4.5 £140k Danny "sees" £140k

total contract value = £460k
Total value to Danny = £370k

Less money, but the contract is structured in such a way that benefits the player despite it being "worth" less on paper in total.

The there is the possiblitity of other "incentives" that maybe Ted wouldn't offer but somebody else might?

Whether he's gone for less or not is of little interest to me. It matters not, he's gone. Look forward not back.

Do we really need to rake over the personal financial details of anyone on here? Brough has gone, end of. Or shall we rake over the details of every person that left this club - for example Julian O'Neill?

How about, and here's a novel thing, concentrating now on who is still in Wakefield colours than those who are not?

Not often I agree with you t-r-i-n-i-t-y but I agree 100%.

Lets move on and look forward to the future, we are still in a great position.

See, sometimes I can speak sense…seriously though, whether it is in the public domain or not, I would not like my finances being discussed in a public forum, nor do I see it as anything other than sticking the boot in to a former player.

It's as silly as cheering for Korkidas when he was playing against us at Belle Vue.

Some are more bitter than John Smith's brewery. Move on, they all leave eventually!