As much as I like some of the names we are linked too, I wouldn't mind hearing about us being linked to some decent backs.

Exactly what I was thinking!

Maybe before the club were not in a position to do so with the structure as it was, but have been able to do this with Tickle because of what looks to have been a complete evaluation of each players worth to the club which is now seemingly reflected in the new deals they are (or not) offered.

This TBH is something that has come not before time as I have often wondered how we could have been so close to the cap limit when looking and the players we have had which were mostly average hence the cutting of the deadwood last season.

Ainscough is another name starting to come up.Can't see it myself unless they are thinking of playing Sharp at full back and moving Tansey to the halves.

But if you evaluate the full situation you dont break the structure you change the structure to accomodate your new remuneration structure.

In the previous situations of players like Orford and Monaghan why would we not have reviewed our structure at the time and chose to change it then? I'd rather if we did change the way we did things it would be to sign a player like Monaghan rather than Tickle.

If we get the chance to sign Ainscough we need to take it. I'd worry about how to fit them all into my team later.

I agree previously we have missed out on the players you mention but who's to say we haven't changed things for that very reason? Tickle may just be the first opportunity under a new structure regarding player recruitment/retention. May be that things are being readied for next season. Plus with the amount of players who were still on deals it would have been impossible to do anything regarding pay until these deals were up for renewal etc. Plus the other complication comes with staying under the cap so could have been worked on for a while but only now have the club been able to implement it.

It would encourage me rather than disappoint me. Surely means we are less likely to miss out again in the future?

Agree and think that if Tickle had have gone it would have been a big loss to the team and one we would have struggled to fill.

It would concern me as to why now? What kind of message does it give to some of our other players too who may have already signed their contracts within the existing structure.

It's encouraging looking forward, disappointing that we've missed soo many opportunities through the approach in the past.

Fair points.

1, Because it's about time.
2, It sends the message that you'll be paid what you are worth to the team, so you need to earn your keep. This can only be a good thing.

Agree. His value to our team is very significant IMO. Particularly his goal-kicking as we don't score enough tries.

Correct. If we broke the structure for Tickle, I'd be pleased. The whole international selection increment thing is bollox anyway, given the random nature of selections by coaches past and present. Any player's worth is subjective, but Tickle's value to us is very high and if we needed to up our offer to stop him going to Huddersfield, I'd be happy. British players of his calibre are at a premium in the open market.

you only have to look back 2 games to crusaders to see the value tickle brings to the team