Agree with that mate, he's good to have in the squad, cheap, versatile, he's no world beater but pretty reliable.

Err easty not being funny but hasnt jake webster signed for cas yet youve got him as stay?

Has he signed for Castleford, Currently only a rumour isn't it? Still the list is only my opinion of the players that I would like to keep.

The comment about 8 players coming in was initially made about two months ago. I'm pretty sure all these things are subject to change and with the squad hitting some form I'm guessing players which where rumoured to be going earlier in the season may yet be offered deals to stay.

My whole point was that I feel where not at full cap and we'll have an even bigger proportion left at the seasons end.

So if it's,say, 6 in, including Lopini Paea and a couple from the NRL, they'll cost less than your 9 going out?

That is a stupid ing question that doesn't even deserve an answer.

OK. You've said it's 11 out, 8 in. You're now backtracking a bit, fair enough, but still proposing 9 out and a reduction in salary expenditure. My point is that Paea will not be on peanuts, on your other board Sandercock's talked of referencing a big signing and there's plenty of Newcastle Knights players being discusssed. I'm just trying to reconcile the net year on year position in terms of players and your view that there will be a cash saving if,say, 6 come in.

LOL your so full of it's unreal. OFC We'll have a reduction in salary expenditure at the end of the season, Problem is this will be taken up by any new players coming into the club. Why do you always have to try and twist every post to suit your own agenda? I don't think we'll have any savings on the contrary I'm hoping we spend the full cap which I don't think we are doing this season.

Right, I get it now, you're saying Rovers will be increasing their spend on players overall. Sorry, the tone of what you were saying seemed to be saying the opposite.

Is that assumption right though? Rob Crossland has already said fans need to realise the financial responsibilities the club has and Hudgell has said there'll be no more underwriting losses by the board, that policy is shifting and the club will go backwards to go forwards or words to that effect. The challenge here is that to operate at full cap, the club needs 10k gates. It's possible, but a gamble, to think Rovers will get 10k gates next season. The club will therefore need to estimate income including attendances and the wage bill will be the balancing figure to achieve break even (most other costs being relatively fixed and including rental on the £2m North Stand). If it were my money, and I'd said there can be no more losses, I wouldn't be committing to a full cap spend until the 10k average was proven.

I never said they will be. I'm not joined to the hip of the directors and know what they plan to budget for sc spend. I would simply hope we could find extra revenue streams with the north being built to increase our sc spend.

FFS I'm a fan not a staff member anything I say is an opinion yet you twist it to make it look like I'm saying it will happen.

For me this 10,000 figure is a load of tosh.

This magical 10,000 figure was quoted a few years ago. In that time revenue streams could have gone up and we therefore need less then the stated 10,000. Alternatively they could have reduced leaving us needing for example 11000 crowds. A crowd to break even ratio surely changes every season dependant on revenue/spends

And I'm just saying that your directors are on record as saying the squad will be rebuilt, step backwards to go forwards and they're not underwriting losses anymore, which to me suggests spend a fair bit below the cap.

On the North Stand, it's 35 weeks until the new season, so it would appear that it will be ready on time. However, you could argue that the revenue streams from it will initially go towards paying back the £2m borrowed by the council to fund it, not necessarily onto the wage bill.

From what's been said, I'd be surprised if spending on players was higher next season than this, that's all.