No such thing as a natural hooker, it’s a learned skill that suits players of a certain build.

I heard all this when Royce Lyne was never going to be a centre, well the experts on here got that one wrong. I get the point to a degree but the fact is if Kay isn’t a natural hooker he’s doing a better impression of being one than some who supposedly are.

We are, unlike any other club paying for a former coach whose contract was coming to an end. It is not necessary to say this is another negative post about the club because it is I do not deny it. We admit that money will be tighter than usual next season so wasting some of what we have on a sacked coach is just folly. I guess it was forgotten we are a business and the survival of the company trumps any friendships.

It’s Josh Wood btw.

That's my fault.
I always refer to the Woods plural and didn't correct my spell check for Josh singular.

Agree with all that

Wood while being an absolute defensive machine isn’t confident running a game
I think hood will be a real game changer for us

Hood and wood will be a good combo though
Kaye covering for those two work ok for me

Kaye starting
Absolutely not

Thing is, that’s just not true.

That means nothing on here.

Jose is right.
You should try to get the facts right before posting things like that.

I'm sure there is something else you can find to be negative about that has a smidgen of truth to it somewhere.

He doesn’t know the facts, none of us do but he speaks with total authority, makes you laugh.

I wouldn’t mind but MC has proved himself nobodies fool over and over so I seriously doubt that his heart is ruling his head. The CC deal will be the correct one whatever it is.

Which bit is wrong are we paying him or not and what would be a bigger benefit to the business for example using the money to resign Hampshire or for Chester to sits at home. I am not an expert on employment law but I would question how valid it is for us to honour a verbal contract. It is one of MC’s standard statements that nothing is certain until the contract is signed.

You don’t know the reasoning behind it that’s the point!

There will be a very good reason for it or are you suggesting NC is incompetent or corrupt? Come on spill the beans.

He also doesn't know if it's Wakefield Trinity that's paying him or MC, which both are perfectly possible based on MC's statement.

Correct, I know nothing about the situation and why should I, it’s between MC and CC. I’m assuming MC is still the majority shareholder, in which case he is the club and can do as he sees fit.

When he announced his departure I don’t remember him saying I will and do you actually believe anyone would fund it from their own pocket I don’t know the actual details but I do know that he is being paid and I would rather that money being used to strengthen the squad.

You have no idea do you, it’s just any excuse for a pop.

Why don't you put your cue on the rack your quest is dull. In the real world of contracts it was a verbal agreement for an extension it wasn't signed the club parted ways and a severance made do you need anything any clearer. Langi was different as he hadn't worked for the club before the verbal contract was agreed hence a nominal agreement. Now instead of looking for a negative on everything either support the club or take the negativity elsewhere it's getting tedious.

Because the exact quote was that he would ‘honour the terms of the contract’. However lazy journalists didn’t report that. I take that to say that an appropriate notice period would be paid, and whilst CC still had at least 2 months to run on his existing contract, any expense over and above that would be minimal.

Still, doesn’t fit your rhetoric does it?

You really are a bunch of sycophants, just accept it is an unnecessary drain on already reduced income. I wonder how many of you would be on here if we had done the same for Webster for example.
We are constantly being reminded of our much reduced revenue only to then waste more on a questionable payment. I would accept severance because that would only cover the period up to the end of his signed contract not for another 12 months.
I note that Jose this is your view which is similarly based on no hard facts when it could be read to mean his as yet unsigned contract but that doesn’t fit your rhetoric does it.

Everybody has been trying to gently tell you you are wrong and just leave it alone.
As you have said, you don't know the terms agreed, or how much it was, or where the money came from.

Yep, I’m miles off

Again completely wrong. CC is no longer ‘being paid’

I suppose he’s not still driving around in his company car either then?

There are no company cars. They are provided by a 3rd party and the club have no involvement in them

Semantics Michael, semantics.

Or just fact?