I'd be interested to know just what people expected him to say.

"The quota won't be full cos Berro wants out after another training ground bust up with Agar. Keep it under your hat, though, cos no one knows yet. Nuff said."

He's given as full an answer as can be expected under the circumstances. Personally, I might have phrased it a little differently, but the content wouldn't have been any more revealing if players' futures were under discussion.

I don't really have a problem with the communication from the club. It's been a lot worse in the past. I'm much more likely to get worked up by half-hearted players and rubbish coaching.

you lost credability there

Your overall quota is made up of 5 'quota' players and then a further 3 non fed players making an overall quota of 8.

No it isnt

Isn't it 7 reducing to 6 next season and then 5 the season after?

Wigan back loaded players salaries though didnt they which the RFL stopped? Not sure what the RFL could do if clubs decided to offer players shorter contracts if it meant they had passed the qualifying period. TBF in the future clubs will only offer contracts to players that expire when they could come off quota. As the rules changed during Manu having a contract some leniency may be shown.

Sorry yeah 6 from next year not 8.

everyone starts with a small amount

That still does not mean your explanation was right.

Factually correct yes, my point was that it was an incorrect approach to what he said.

I would be very surprised if what you're saying actually happen. The only way i can see that happening is if the existing contract is paid off in full and a new one negotiated.

If you seem to think you are right, then say so instead of just saying someone else is wrong. Why don't you tell them what is correct, or do what you username means and keep quiet.

Explain then?