Please don't use the word "Centurions". It makes me think of Leigh and puts me off my food.

If a player wants to play elsewhere, he'll play elsewhere? Contracts mean nothing these day's.

I've just read the Kelly article and it sounds like he is leaving his options entirely open and letting his manager do the talking, which is usually the case these days, this can be interpreted as, it will all depend on how the club do this season and what offers are on the table financially .
If the club do well this season and lay the foundations for an even better one next year, then I would hope that the club do enough to persuade him that his future lies here, Kelly has already said he loves it here and the direction the club is going in, i also heard him say something similar a couple of weeks ago in the club bar.
one obvious factor that could be a deciding one is financial, would the difference in what he could earn here as opposed to down under be so huge that it became a no brainer, or could the difference be small enough to persuade him that staying here at least for one or two more years would be worthwhile.

Sorry old chap, didn't mean to put you off your food.
I hope you are not having roast Goose.

Oi!

That's illegal around these parts, you filthy human.

The rumour that Albert Kelly is going to New Zealand Warriors strikes me as highly unlikely, even ridiculous. A look at the NZ Warriors current talent roster shows why:

1. Shaun Johnson. Golden Boot winner and one of the world's top 5 scrum halves, is there and is a near certainty to stay there.
2. Chas Townsend. Playing at No 6 and doing very well for the club (see yesterday's game)
3. Tuimoala Lolohea. A raging hot prospect who is predicted to play No 6 very soon. Can also play full back, centre or wing but Warriors have an abundance of talent, even surplus talent, in these positions.
4. Thomas Leuluai. Now playing hooker but has been used at No 6.

Manly sounds like a more likely destination for Albert since that club will lose both of its current star halves in 2016, and must be cashed up for replacements because of that.

According to latest rumours there is quite a lot of interest "our Albert" if Hudgell hasn't got him tied to contract with no get out clause in it then he can't be much of a solicitor considering the players we have lost out on over the past few years what is the point in bringing them over for one year or even two if they are not going to fulfil the agreement

Pathetic post.

If Hudgell is a poor solicitor, then please show me your business portfolio so we can all make a suitable comparison.

Perhaps Kelly (or his management team) would only come if such a clause was inserted? Maybe you should await something official before slating a bloke who's put millions of his own brass into our club. Latest rumours? You been on facebook again?

What Stan said. Were you complaining when at the start of the season when he's been on fire? No but as soon as rumours start it's the chairmans fault. I'd rather have Kelly for 3 years but if he tears it up for a year then gets a better deal back home that's better than not having him at all. If Keating had signed a 3 year deal you wouldn't be praising us for keeping him for the duration.

He did:
[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/23768707[/url

[i[Shudder[/i

I am no saying Hudgell is a poor solicitor I admire the man and all he has done for Rovers over the years but surely what has happened over the past few seasons we have brought players over and most times giving them another chance and what have they done left for more money generally breaking there contracts or being bought for a fee As a rovers supporter I want to see us retain those players to finish up amongst the top teams Not be a feeder to them Yes I had been on Facebook

Sounds like you are to me: