Lee smith is a good SL player and he is proven in SL.....for £60,000 i think we should be making every effort going to sign him because he can only add strength to the gleeson/blanch wing...coincidently an area where we get cut to ribbons on a regular basis. weve done alright financially out of the brough deal so lets see some of he money put directly back into the team!

Is the 60 000 just to get him out of the RU contract then he needs a contract which won't be cheap???

Don't even think it - we've got what we've got for now in Gledhill / Cooke and Kirmond. There is no money left for player recruitment right now!

i was under the impression that Newton's wage was used to pay for Cooke's and probably most of Gledhill's wage and Hudds were paying the majority of Kirmond's? We can't of got that much money off Hudds then if we don't have any money free! Or am i wrong?

think we probably have to face facts that the crowds have come in to our income projections again!

It's not just crowds - sponsorship is very hard to come by and the actual cash even harder!

ah!

so therefore what we have is what we have got for this season?

mmm we sure dont need a lot of injuries then!

Backs to the wall - love it!

Think it's the same at every club this season.The injury list @ Leeds proves that point. The financial position out there is probably more severe than last year for many companies. So there's no miracle cure on the horizon.Anyone who can field a relatively experienced 17 every week will stand a chance.
We will have the odd hic-ups here and there but we do posess a group of players that cover most bases and our kids have also tasted a fair amount of game time to have confidence in them.

if true its bloody bad business we have lost Newton and Brough who must have being on big money i like the Gledhill signing but we now need a top class scrum half and a decent hooker
Cooke and Kirmond are poor signings when you look at who we have lost

We have lost our 2 best play makers and replaced them with players who will not dictate or turn a game

I get what you're saying, but it's never that straight forward - is it.

If Brough was on that much money, he surely would have stayed.

Was told at begining of the week he's heading back to Leeds................................by a loiner, we shall see!!!!

Fail to see how Newton can be classed as one of our two best playmakers!

They tried to get him on loan last week but it didn't come off. But if their injury problems don't clear up i'd expect them to keep trying.

So the rumoured loose forward is a none starter then??

Am i getting this???
We have lost Brough & Newton, and have brought in Cooke, Gledhill and Kirmond along with a few quid for the transfer fee. Kirmond is rumoured to be getting paid by Hudds and we are now saying that is what we have to go with as there is no cash left??

this is the same issue that im finding hard to understand! i can appreciate that the money we receieved doesn't have to go to improving the squad right away but when people say that we still can't afford to spend it is when i get concerned

Wasn't Cooke's contract paid up by Hull KR? If so, then surely we aren't paying him the same kind of cash Newton was on? In addition, we seem to have been prepared to up Brough's salary, so that cash must have been there?

Yes thats what I thought re Cooke salary. so we lose Brough & Newton wage say £120000 and sign kirmond and Gledhill say £70000 and we get cash from Hudds and so we have money in budget to spend

Did anyone think it would be easy running a SL club in these tough times?

It's only 6 months ago that the tax man was after a very large sum of money.

cooke can and has dictated and turned games for years more when he was at hull!!! and i am sure that he will do it again for us once he is fully fit. i would of loved to of seen him play with brough but is not ment to be but am i sure cooke will do a good job for us and when bj gets back playing then think we will be aright

Based on the numbers quoted in the press relating to the sum of cash we had paid Newton prior to his 'faux pas' he would have been on at leat £80K, add to that the cash Brough was on and you get much more than £120K

So if Brough and Newton had still been wakey players we would be broke? I was under the impression that shudds were making a contribution towards Kirmond and Korkys wages plus we were saving say £200k combined from the departure of Brough & Newton. We have spent some of that on Cooke and to a lesser extent Gledhill which should leave us a fair amount of headroom. If we need to make this saving just to balance the books things look grim indeed.

No wonder the club have no money, think of how many accountants they have on retainer. There is the club's official one and then there are the god knows how many (in the know) accountants that post on here. If the club stick to just one then we could sign a scrum half and a hooker.

No grimmer than most of the other clubs, the difference being that perhaps their fans dont speculate on their prospective boards' about how much money the club have/havent got to spend on players, and that way you dont come up with 2+2=5 Its one thing having sponsorship money but if it does not come in on time where does that leave the club then? add to that dissapointing attendances and its not hard to see why the club dont rush into spending money they perhaps need short term for other matters. On the other side of the coin where does Kear go to for what he wants mid season, assuming of course there is somebody available better than what we already have.