The issue is more about letting a player go who knows our tactics (ROFL) to one of our main rivals for SL status, that's what the uproar is about. If he were just released and went back to Auz no one would bat an eye lid.

What's he going to tell them?
He is hardly giving defensive structures away.
Everything they need to know about us is on video.

Puts a bit more pressure on Tupou to perform IMO. Letting one player go to free up a quota space to bring someone else in builds some pressure, the fact that by letting him go we have potentially strengthened one of the teams we will be fighting makes that pressure even greater.
If Tupou doesn't live up to expectations then expect a real outcry from the moaners on here.

I know you like to take the club's stance but not everything can be found by watching video. Why did we release him now and allow him freedom to sign for any club. It was obvious that it would be one of the clubs in the middle 8. Why did Bradford only sign him until the end of the season, I know it's our current policy but that once again is more to do with finance.
If you were told out of the blue that you were no longer required and were free to leave what would you think of your employer especially after working for them for two years. I bet you don't see any other club in the middle 8's releasing players so that they can sign for other clubs. I know Salford did with Locke but that was more to do with their chairman believing his own hype and the ability of the Salford team.
I am not surprised all the chairman find ours easy to deal with and accommodating.

I'm not taking the clubs stance on this as I have no idea what it is.
I don't even know he's actually signing for Bulls.

I do know although I quite liked him, I'm not too worried about him leaving or if he goes to a team in middle 8.. He wasn't that great this season.

Ironically, if he plays he'll be taking the place of the last irreplaceable guy we let go to a middle 8 team.

That irreplaceable guy left to join a club heading to the championship and it was last season. I know everyone is replaceable but the question I ask why release when we are unsure if one of the other quota players may not play again this season. He did not ask to leave he was told by our chairman that he could so the only reason would be to save money. To then allow him to join one of our main competitors just adds to the stupidity of the original decision and the haste it was pushed through.
We even considered letting two other players leave but decided at the last minute it would probably be better to keep them should we pick up any injuries.

How many second rowers do we have?
How many outside backs do we have?

This is irrelevant it's not where he plays but why he was released. If it was the former I would think Kirke would be a better bet. I read they had decided that they were not going to offer him a contract if that was the reason then you could add the majority of the squad who are out of contract with no indication of any new offers being made. To release a quota spot then look at removing Locke until it can be confirmed he will be back this season.
I would guess it was the best option to save money because let's face it this is the major motivation at the moment.
We enter our last guaranteed SL game on Sunday having played our worst season' with only a small number signed for next season and no ground.

Will be interesting how they price next years season tickets in view of this years debacle.

Relegated prices unchanged unless we are in an all seater stadium still in SL increase dependent on where we are playing. If for example all seater I would expect quite an increase. The season tickets sales are a long way off first we need to know the league we are in and then the ground we are occupying. This would suggest we may have to go sometime once the season ends with no revenue that clubs expect from early birds offers.

You release Kirke and who is the 'domestic' player that comes in and replaces him?
Don't you think this option has already been explored, with the signings of Howarth, Tansey and Walker?
So I would say it's very relevant.
As for Locke being removed, maybe that will come later on, if the club has a replacement lined up?
Give the bloke a chance because if he did get released with no replacement, you would be moaning at that!

I know Ryan leaving and Tupou coming in were only announced this week but I would have thought it was sorted before Locke got injured, as the RFL have to sanction the signings and to get Tupou signed up we must have had to show we were freeing up a quota space. No way Tupou would be here and eligible for Hudds game if we had only sorted it all this week.

Perhaps Ryan was amongst the high earners at the club and it was felt that the money could be better utilised on other players coming in to strengthen weaker areas, as we are reasonably well endowed for back rowers.

The weaker in some areas and well off in other areas was what I was trying to subtly get across but WHOOSH!
It went over someone's head.