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............

TRB is spot on (IMO).

The club is far better off without him and will save paying his wages.
The Captain of the club publicly states his agreement.

Obviously it helps that we have just thumped our latest opponents, but despite this I have to agree if he didnt want to be here - get shut. Simple as.

Also, in the longer term view, it's good to have friends in high places (like at the Broncos) so that at some future date they may be willing to scratch our back so to speak e.g. player recommendations, loan players etc.

Regarding Tronc say we have forced him to see out his contract of the year. His wife was homesick and returned home but he was froced to stay. He is an overseas player so will have lots of ex team mates that play in Oz. Or if we withhold his registration etc. How do you feel this will effect our success in attracting future overseas players. One of the major factors you will see when a player signs is such and such told me what a great club it is and so I signed.

Poaching reconeded us, Frank Watena recommendeds us, etc I am not saying let players walk all over us but this has to be considered that we support families that don't settle.

So we had to let them go as JD said. Regarding replacements we can just go out and sign anyone we want can we? Who is around and willing to come that is of any quality?

There are quite a few more who have and will in the future, that sort of goodwill is "priceless" to a club like ours.

JD is 100% correct.

Every SINGLE club in Australia is short of cash Tommy.