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

You could argue that if we broke the structure for Orford or Monaghan in the first place we wouldnt be so reliant on a kicker?

Maybe Orford was a poor example to use.

Putting Tickle out of the equation too my main point i guess is that i'm wondering why FC have decided to change their approach now and not last year or not next year?

Have we decided that our wage structure needs an overhaul to be competetive?
Have we secretly never spent upto the cap and now decided to do so?

Maybe they haven't just decided to do this and it is something that has been in the pipeline for a while but were unable to implement earlier due to the players contracts that still had time to run and factoring in all other issues maybe now is the best time to change etc. Plus they cleared some of the decks last season with the departure of a number of last seasons players and this could all be part of a restructuring plan that has been brought in by Agar when given the job, maybe even a reason why he was given a renewed deal so early due to plans for the future?

I would still think that if the right player became available then it would be possible to adapt the wage structure to an extent but not by paying way over the odds.

I echo what Chris71 says. The HDM article hints at it being Agar that's pushing this, and it was also suggested that the last 2 coaches have not been involved in that side of dealings, so it looks like it's something he's gone to the board about. It quite possibly was in place last year but with less room to manoeuvre with the contract situations at that time. Orford is the only one I can think of that we were outbid for last year, and is rumoured to be on silly money, so I'd say we got that one right, and the only player who was retained from last year in questionable circumstances IMO was Cusack, and he was another offered less money than his expiring deal. The more I think about it, the more likely it seems that it's come from Agar. If so, consider my cap doffed.

Hull signed Long about three months before Bradford signed Orford.