From what I understand, Cooke has been told he wont get a new contract for next year because JM and the board thinks the money can be better spent elsewhere. There's been no fallouts, but Cooke has been told, if he can find another club, he's free to talk to them and move as long as the deal is amicable between the three parties.

The reason for his absence from the team is because JM isn't prepared to include him whilst he is in discussions with another club. However if any potential move falls through, he's happy to include Cooke back in his match squads.

Not much new info there, I know, but the alleged 'gagging order' is complete nonsense.

That contradicts Morgans 'we never instigated it' comments dont you think?

No I don't. Cooke may have the club's permission to discuss a move, but the club certainly have not instigated any move by either contacting other clubs or removing him from the squad because they want rid.

I disagree. If you are saying Morgan has told Cooke he wont get a new contract and he is free to look elsewhere then the 'not instigated by us' comment is ridiculous. Of course it is instigated by Rovers they have told him he can look elsewhere (apparently).

Why then was Morgan angry to the point of wordlessness in [ithat[/i interview? That was surely more than just been fed up of discussing it.
There look to be issues to be resolved and I hope they are resolved swiftly, so the team and club can move forward.

I know this all just opinions and speculation, so I'm not having a pop.
Another thing that occurs to me though, is why would want would Cooke want a move now, if everything is hunkydory? Why be so keen to take an inevitable pay cut now, rather than waiting until the end of the year. He may not want a contract to run down, with the ever present threat of injury - but then a loan deal makes little sense.
Perhaps, I'm wrong - with the overseas quota coming down and 14 SL teams competing for players, perhaps his stock has held up better than I assume.

Can't see it being inevitable that he takes a pay cut NOW. If he moves out from Rovers on loan who he is contracted to at x amount of pounds per year,that contract is still valid.His present salary will probably be met between both clubs.
This could be the reason he doesn't seem all that concerned about it dragging on.weather he plays for Rovers ,Wakey or sits out the season on the bench,his contracted money has to be paid.
If he goes on loan ,and negotiates a new contract for Wakey then yes a pay cut will be on the cards but not now.

He wont take a paycut. Not this year anyway. If he does move on loan, both clubs must reach an agreement to pay his current contracted salary between them. As far as next year is concerned, is it just a coincidence that Brough appears to be moving on at the same time they're looking to bring Cooke in? If Cooke was prepared to take more than a nominal paycut, he wouldn't need to look for another club.

I meant that the pay-cut is inevitable, ultimately, but was asking why he would take it now - which he would have to for a permanent deal. Essentially we are agreeing.
What he does have to bare in mind is that if sits on his booty (may as well do the swear filter's job for it) just collecting his wage, is his value when he does look for a contract will have dropped even more. Remember as well that a big gross pay-cut is a bit smaller (net) when it is the part of your wage that is taxed at 40% that it is coming from.
What I want is for Wakey to offload Brough to Hudds and then, newly cashed up and in need of playmaker, make Cooke an offer to the end of 2011 or 2012. It'll be less than we're paying him, but he'll get security. We get him off our wage bill completely. Things seem to be dragging on for both deals, but we'll see.

I wonder if that is the sticking point. The club were happy for him to go, but not if meant they were still lumbered paying a chunk of his wages.

If Rovers gave him permission to talk to other clubs, and what he came back with is 'Wakefield want me on loan, but will only pay 50% of my wage', I can imagine that elliciting a rude response and both parties feeling aggrieved.

Now it looks like Wakey might 'need' Cooke, if Hudds stump up the cash for Brough, Rovers are going to be pushing for more generous terms you'd imagine. Mind, if we are talking the difference between say 20% and 50% over 6/7 months, we aren't looking a huge sums and you'd think the gap would be bridgeable.

Yeah you would think so, although I'm sure Rovers don't want to be paying a large chunk of money every month for a player they don't have the use of, whatever situation wakefield find themselves in.

Personally I don't think they can afford to have both Brough and Cooke on their books. We spoke to Brough and although by his own admission, he'd love to come and play for us, we don't need/want him enough to match what he's earning at Wakey. I'm surprised Huddersfield do though given [itheir[/i options in the halves.

It was looking likely Brough would leave at the end of the season, but maybe they need to offload him now to even afford to get Cooke on loan.

I think Wakey have tabled three offers to Brough and he has turned them all down.If he goes at end of season they get nothing.Could be wrong but if he goes now while under contract a transfer fee is payable.This is the same reason Wakey would be reluctant to take Cooke on a permanent deal now.They get him for nothing at end of year,so why pay a transfer fee when the loan option is a viable alternative.
Similar situation arose last year for us with Tansey,ooc at end of year however to bring him over early we ended up paying Leeds a transfer fee.

Yep that is it on short!

But we dont want to lose him now (unless v.well compensated). He will more than likely leave at the end of his contract, but nothing new with that, happens every year.

Re Cooke.....wakey have circa £90,000 now free from Newton, cooke is on more that that at HKR, so they except our offer and subsidise his wage or it’s a dead deal.

The cooke deal is not tied to brough!