Can see Lee Smith being announced this week. Mullallly will be free and Cash used to part fund Smith.

You need 4 props in every game, so Let's say Scruton, Anderson, Simon and Kavanagh are starting props. Walker as back up. For an important run of games we can't afford any injuries or bans unless we have some depth.

Its a good deal for Shudds. They move a player on who will be at Leeds next season and bring in a young british prop. We take a player who already made up his mind he didn't want to be at Shudds and will probably not want to be at Wakey.
If Smith was on his way at the end of the season anyway don't think it matters that much, from his point of view. From a club point of view money must be involved .
From what I have seen of Smith hes been a good solid performer and unfortunately he will benefit from the move at the present time.
I think Shuds have the best part of the deal without doubt.

Until we can consistently get between 5-6k through the turnstiles then this will keep happening. Clearly whatever sum received is to help balence the books.

Our chairman is in a difficult position, we all know we need more fans, but we can't give tickets away.

I do know that a near full stadium creates a great atmosphere. I hope the management are looking at a middle 8 pass to try and entice a few stay always back now that the games "mean something"!

Smith a already a good quality forward and one that is only going to get better. He has been one of our most consistant players since he arrived, his stats in a struggling side are bery impressive and losing him is a blow. Can't say i rate Mullally any higher than what we already have so whilst he adds depth i personally think Hudds are the big winners with this deal.

Aren't they always winners when we are on our uppers. Bit like saying an Hyena might come out big winner against a wounded antelope.

Four year deal! that's insane - no player is worth that, certainly not Smith, bonkers.

Its a problem when deals are done before the end of the season. Its will be interesting to see the outcome of a number of players.

It's not, as a club we obviously gave Hudds Permission to speak to Smith in the first place & allowed the deal to go ahead on our terms.

As for the 4 year deal - We had him on a 3 so it just proves, a safety net that if a another club comes in you will get some sort of fee. A club like Hudds I suppose can take those risks on throwing big/long contracts about, there cash rich. So for a promising 23 year old forward, I don't think its out of the ordinary.

Why is that a problem?

I suppose we will get used to it after the 8s. Hopefully we are still in SL and some out of contract may stay.
Our revolving door has started already anyway. Presumably this was sorted pre BS?
I wish him the best but has he really been that good for us? It's just a symptom of what has happened this year.
Clearly, his best (earning) days are in front of him. No point in moaning, we are in transition, AGAIN.

Not especially sure what the fuss is about here. His defence was aweful as he tired, often turning his back on play as he retreated back into the line.

I think we've got this covered.

I rate Mullally very highly from what i have seen of him, but the key is if his heart is in it.

Shame to see Dan Smith go as i think him and Washbrook have probably been our most consistent performers but if this deal gives us a transfer fee (even if that is just Mullally FOC to the end of the season) and opens up the possibility of bringing someone else in (possibly Lee Smith?), then in the short term, which lets be honest is all we can think about, then i think it is good for us.

With regards 4 props, i think nowadays you could probably say 5 per game. Kavanagh, Simon, Smith & Annakin have all been named at LF during this season.