yes well said jd and well played. fantastic effort from the captain and regarding the departed players, i hear at least one of them is not settling in very well. seems to be having a few problems. how sad!

And just what point do you think I am missing? A BIT ???!!!
And who the hell said everything in the garden is rosy ?

No - it is YOU who is missing the point. The right time to let a player go is when they no longer want to be with you / they won't play well for you / are costing you money and/or you can get money back from them.

You then try and get the best replacements you can with your resources - someone who wants to be part of our club - you accept that there will be a 'bedding in' period and you get on with it.

THE POINT is that the club made the right calls for the right reasons - that doesn't mean to say that we are happy with it all, but the club have done the best that they can FOR the club.

Go back to JD's comments - what we gained was the riddance of a 'cancer' that was creating friction in the dressing rooms. We also 'gained' the balance of the contract monies that would have been spent supporting a player in a lifestyle he wanted out of.

As there are transfer fees between here and Aus, this was the best deal alround - in fact I'd have got shut of him 3 weeks earlier!

Accepted - but we got no actual "payment" for the player?

No - and yet every single person at the club will tell you that we are 'better off' - now how did that happen?

This is a circular argument and I don't want to portray myself as a doomsayer by repeating the same criticisms over and over again; I maintain however that from a fans perspective, the departure of some of our pivotal players appeared to have been handled badly, for all the reasons I've already stated, and that was compounded by the lack of information that was forthcoming at the time.

Whilst everyone 'at' the club may think they're 'better off', I don't, since I'm not 'at' the club, I just pay out a significant portion of my disposable income to watch them, and I like winning more than losing, so at the moment, I'm not 'better off' ta very much!

You seem to be clinging on to the argument that we would somehow be better off with Brough - who didn't want to be with us but 'would stay if he had to' - or with Tronc - who clearly just did not want to play.

Instead we have a squad that are clearly very tightly bonded, have been through the mill a bit and are determined to 'give it their all' for us and the club.

Running a RL club is no easy thing, and is made ever more difficult by having these matters played out in public (something most businesses do not have to deal with), but sometimes it is just not possible to give out all of the details and we, the speccies, have to rely on the coach and the club to do what they think is best. They have, and although most of us have been miserable over the past 6 weeks, we now look a whole lot better placed than some of our neighbours - who are on a downward spiral - having spent a whole lot less to get there.

I would change nothing!

I too am just an innocent money paying supporter, and I feel much better off knowing the players wearing 'MY' shirt, representing 'MY' club on the pitch, are not taking the michael along with their pay cheque.

His termination contract includes clauses restricting him from playing this side of the globe. There are no mechanisms for transfer fees between the countries and so we have the best deal available - the saving of a lot of wasted money propping up a prop that doesn't want to play.

I also don't think it would be the right thing to do to try and prevent him from earning a wage in his own country doing the job he is trained to do.

Well I suppose we will have to agree to disagree, still stand by we could potentially have done better given he wanted to go and the bronchos wanted him - and they're not exactly short of cash it would be fair to assume.

I appreciate we have to send out a message that we are 'compassionate' towards players (for want of a better word) but I reckon this could be counter productive - "sign for Wakey if nowt better's on the table, soon as interest picks up in you sod off with no consequences.... "

OK - turn it around - let's say he was on £80k pa. He was approx half way through this year's contract, so if we don't release him, we still pay £40k for an under-performing player who is causing disruption and un-certainty in the dressing room.

I'd say we were £40k better off, and with a stronger team, in that scenario!

I don't believe for a single nanosecond that there are "no mechanisms for transfer fees btween the two countries" anyone can transfer money from one bank to another bank practicaly anywhere in the planet, and also the rabbitohs also managed to pay the bulls compensation for taking burgess early.
I also believe we have been naive in our dealings over the tronc affair, and while I agree in principal with not paying a stubborn player, there are sanctions that can be taken under employment law that could have been used in our intrests, and the point of saving money does the squad no good at all if it is not reinvested.
As for brough I'm sure he would have played on, the facts behind whatever rumours re his involvement with or without banned products aside, and we would arguably have a few more points on the board.
That said I feel this has been done to death, and while I am happy to get behind the club, we all have long memories and it won't be long before it's all brought back to bare.
Class is perminant, form is temporary, and supporters............