The other good thing about this is that to free up some money and a place in the pack Souths have 'released' Fa'alogo. So we get to see a World Cup winning back rower in the UK.

At the end of the day they were all sold before their contracts were up to make a quick dollar. Selling our 4 best players in four consecutive seasons puts us firmly in the catagory of a selling club. It's black and white.

To me, a selling club is a club who sells its top assets who want to be here. A selling club to me, isn't a club that sells its players because they want to leave.

You have a poor argument this time. If someone wants to go, let them go rather than keeping against their will.

So you think all should have been kept to their contracts even though they all made it perfectly clear they wanted to leave?

I cant believe having players at the club that want to be elsewhere is a good thing.

To be fair Fielden said he wanted out before Noble even went to Wigan, Vianikolo and Hape had a desire to play union and Burgess obviously wants to go to Oz. So we are not a selling club, if someone wants out then you might aswell get good money for them, rather than lose them for nothing. I just hope we have something up our sleeve, becuase we need a marque signing.

I think selling a player that is held to a contract makes you a selling club.

Sell ya best players and you're a selling club. It's that simple.

Can you guys see my siggy?

I think on this issue you are on a bit shaky ground, tbh.

If a player wants out for more money or to pursue an ambition or whatever, even if the player is being reasonable about it and not taking his bat home, then yes you CAN hold him to his contract. And if said player takes his bat home, then yes as you argued elsewhere you CAN play him in the reserves to teach him a lesson (except of course there are no reserves next year...) And yes, if it makes you feel good to know you have not let the player get his own way then you CAN have a big chunk of salary cap sat in the stand or carrying the water on.

Yes, you CAN do that. But why would you want to?

Alternatively, you recognise the inevitability of the situation - same as Leeds did with Harris when he went to Cardiff, and get the best you can for the player and free up the cap for someone who is more keen to be here. And, funnily enough, once it gets sorted then the player's performances usually improve in the games he has left.

I have it on very good authority that one at least of the players on your list did indeed take his bat home over money big time at one point.

I also think it needs to be recognised that clubs who historically have been seen as selling clubs did it either to stay alive or to cash in a big asset to further the club's development. The latter like we did with Newlove. I guess the history books will record why we sold Fielden.

Not at all, Solid is the ground that I am on.

Adey, it doesn't matter what yours or anybody elses defination of a selling club is, the defination of selling as I'm sure you well know is to transfer goods for money and seen as though that is what we have done, with each of our best assests for each of the past 3 seasons, and soon to be fourth and we are a rugby club that indeed makes us a selling club. It can't be argued against sufficiently to disprove.

So just accept the fact that Peter Hood has gone against his words, sold his best players and we are now indeed a selling club.

How can any player who obviously does not want to play for us and makes that clear to the coach and the board be considered to be an asset?

Maybe we should be worrying about WHY they want to leave rather than whether or not we are a "selling club"?

I'm keeping my powder dry on this until I see what the club plans to do in response to Burgess leaving early - if it happens.

That's going to be the key, it's going to take a heck of a deal to keep fans positive though.

If it happens, I can think of three contrasting precedents.

Hanley - we took the money, signed some inadequate replacements and carried on down a slippery slope.

Newlove - we played our hand beautifully, and created a championship team.

Fielden - we made the best of a bad job, steadied the ship financially, and didn't visibly affect playing strength (though, to be fair, more due to Fielden's deterioration than to any resulting acquisitions on our part).

I can't see it being a Fielden (as I don't think we'll get a large enough monetary sum from an Aussie club). For me, acquiring, say, Kearney, Walker and Reardon would be 'doing a Hanley', while acquiring an international class direct replacement (such as Moi Moi), plus three backs (including at least one three-quarter and at least one half-back) at or near international class, would be more like 'doing a Newlove'. Like you, Sam, I'll neither condemn nor praise till I know which it is.

Errm, is Burgess one of our best assets when he's on the field, was Vainikolo, was Fielden, was Hape...err yes they were.

So by your definition by selling a single player, any single player, you therefore become a "selling club" . . . . . . ? ? ?

I know we've done the Sam thing to death elsewhere.

I suspect that a number of people on here are just going to have to agree to disagree on the rights and wrongs of Sam's departure / what Hood meant when he spoke of not being a selling club.

I think TM has made his opinion known on this issue often enough. I'm surprised people are being suckered into a repeat!

I don't make the defination of 'selling' up Bullpower.

I didn't say we are not and are not going to become a selling club and then proceed to every last bit of quality we have. That was Peter Hood.

If you sell your players, then you can't be anything else but a selling club.

Shame really because it's just another thing Peter has assured fans that we wouldn't do after he told us we wouldn't break the salary cap again and then did so the very same year and a year later.

Nobody is being suckered into anything Bully, we're talking our differences.
Suppose we could all agree though, wouldn't that be nice?


Relax your good self, kidder.

Isn't an asset something that is worth money? So that would make him an asset.

If this is officially announced without anything positive on the signing front, then I see big problems. I only hope they have something up their sleeves to try and make this a little bit easier for the fans to take.

Come, on, you are reverting to your old ways on here - shame, I liked this much more reasonable version



For the avoidance of doubt, the principal reason we broke the cap was the treatment of Harris' image rights. We broke it again the following year because the payment for those was a contractual commitment, and we were well through the following year before the breach was determined, by which time it was too late to fix it. And the contract with Harris, including the structure of the deal which clearly included the treatment of image rights being paid by a supposedly independent third party, was signed under the Caisley regime not Hood's. The Hood regime was left to sort out the consequences. And since that must have meant a reduction in player spend elsewhere to accommodate the Harris payments within the cap, is it any surprise we had less to spend?

And we only broke the cap two years not three. And at the time Hood said there would likely be consequences for the then-current year too. And I have explained above why that was so.

And come on! The whole board can see that you are being disingenuous with your "selling club" comments. You've made your point, as you had every right to and as Bullseye and MDF so rightly say, what happens next (if Sam does indeed go) will determine what the fans make of it all. You may even be able to tell everyone you told us so - although don't take it personally if I speak for most of us in saying I hope it does not come to that and we do indeed sign some quality.

I like to hear a differing opinion but when the argument is a repeat of one earlier in the thread it becomes a little tiresome!

I don't have any old ways to revert to. Pleased you love me though





It's not under question why we broke the cap, I'm fully aware of the reasons or can make a reasonable educated guess, but I'm more bothered why Peter is telling us things will or wont happen, and then the exact opposite is what happen in reality.

How can you say I'm being disingenoius, I'm being straight up and looking at it for what it is and using hard facts of evidence in my argument, it's others that are refusing to acknowledge what is happening regards to the Bulls selling their players when it's right there in front of them.

I don't want to come on here and say I told you so, but I've no problem in admitting to myself and others, as much as it hurts to say so and as much as it's dissapointing to see that we've become a selling club by selling our best players, 4 years on the trot.

Just chill your self pal, I'm saying what I think, by all means argue against me. Or if you don't want to or don't like what I say then don't read it or don't get involved if you don't want to. No problem man.