You mentioned Sinfield, to attract him we'd need to be offering substantially more money in the first place! As you point out he could easily go elsewhere.

The club need to come up with fresh ideas to manage performance. What we have currently is not working.

Guaranteed deals are not bringing the level of performance need in all cases.

Well not really because there are only so many places to go. Only 14 teams and the gap between SL and championship salary cap is substantial.

So, the players who have more than one offer on the table will go to the clubs who are able to offer guaranteed two or three year deals. The rest - the ones without decent offers from elsewhere (y'know, the ones no-one else wants) - will come to Salford to join the contract termination lottery. Brilliant.

Only if we are very lucky. If not they'll do a year in our treatment room.

"If you have a clause that allows you the OPTION to terminate a contract why would you use it terminate the contracts of the best players? Surely you would release the worst players"

Explain how this stands up in employment legislation:
1. Players can ask to be released but the club can require a transfer fee: this makes them different in that they cannot just hand in a month's (or whatever) notice. At the same time it gives them security of their contract. You remove one, their soliciors will make sure the other is removed. So Ratchford (for example) could leave in July.
2. You are not talking redundancy so explain how you marry "unacceptable performance" with lack of points in a season won by others, whose performance is not seen as worthy of sacking?
3. How you decide on the worst players. Poor Broughton: few tackles and few passes. Out! Your and my view is immaterial here: the targets and the stats set to show the meeting of such targets become the golden rule.

We're not a million miles away... We're a billion!