Amen

There has been some confusion - it is going to be Clint Newton rather than New Clinton.

I've always wanted to do this: FACT!

[urlhttp://www.hullkr.co.uk/article.php?id=711[/url

Shull Bitt!

Were you one of the 600 Kosh ?

Just a wild misinformed guess could be he's still in the air on a 10,000 mile trip.

Still some life in this thread yet...

Gawd!

Did he not get unveiled then....flippin heck it is starting to resemble crockergate

Isn't it though!

Although we had a valid reason in the new interpretation of rules and got caught out simultaneously with Leeds, Bradford and Huddersfield. What's your excuse with all that experience to learn from?

Must admit this has become rather puzzling. If the deal is done pending a visa, why not just say so? Particularly if a visa isn't seen to be an issue. I understand the original theory that it was to avoid embarrassment if he didn't get a visa for some reason, but the longer this drags on the more counter-productive that strategy appears to be.

Particularly when his agent says categorically that he's signed. Why not just say he's signed subject to visa/work permit like everyone else, and just say the rather unpredictable visa process is taking longer than expected?

Secrecy would be best, but it is hard to keep a secret for long. You're are then left with going for the fanfare or downplaying it, which just invites more questions. If there is a problem it is just like choosing between oils and water colours to paint a car crash.
If he comes, job done. If he can't we'll have to look elsewhere - an open quota spot and spare cash on the cap isn't the worst way to enter a long season, especially given NRL players' propensity to need to, ahem, escape controversy. The lesson we should learn from the experiences of Hudds, Leeds, Hull and Bradford is to move on quickly, if we can, should there be a problem. I suspect he'll come, but I'd be slightly (if pleasantly) surprised if he plays against Salford now.

Already posted that I've heard the deal relies on players moving on and currently they're not. Seems more plausable as the days go by

Would you move on if you were Mills or Fisher when you could earn a good salary from the stands? Blanket and Thermos - job's a good 'un.

Clinton has been very badly advised if that is the case. Would you quit a job to take another on the other side of the World, with the assurance that you can start when a current member of staff agrees to leave?

We have to add one to the homegrown quota in the top 25 earners and it occurred to me that Clinton might push a homegrown player out of the 25, but Fozzard, Fitzhenry, Gene and Aizue out, with only Ratu and Cook in (Hodgson is 20 so counts as homegrown for this year) so far means that shouldn't be the case. Then there is the cap... but Riolo said Clinton is waiting on his visa and as we haven't heard anymore either way on that, it strikes me as the simplest and therefore most likely explanation.

Can't see Fisher leaving and have seen nought to suggest it is likely. Mind I don't get much gossip down here.

Mills, going into the last year of a contract might have more motivation to move on and he'd have been a decent match for the Crusaders on paper - thing is it'd have to be a two year deal to make it worth his while and would you bet your livelihood on that club [udefinately[/u being around to compete in 2011? He'll be playing for a contract (somewhere and assuming he does play occasionally) this year, and the value of your investment can go up as well as down.

To be fair I think most Rugby League players would far rather be out on the pitch.

id presume that he would not financially lose out in anyway

mmmm , a grand a week sat in stands or £300 for getting whalloped in NL1, tough decisions

I can think of one import / and one prospective import who were even sitting on the beaches in Oz last season picking up a damned sight more

I agree there's a kind of 'damned if you do...' choice to make in these situations, but it just seems an odd strategy when every other club announces signings 'subject to visa' as soon as the contract is watertight. What may have started with a desire to avoid possible bad PR seems to have ended up generating just that as the uncertainty continues.


Quite. It's hardly a disaster if he doesn't arrive, which makes the apparent 'cloak and daggery' even more puzzling.

Oh well - it will all come out in the wash at some point and there will no doubt be a completely boring and rational explanation for it all.

You can afford these luxuries when you make a profit year after year.

Nail on head, the policy of keeping it quiet was the right one if we could have just announced 'out of the blue' he had signed and was available to play straight away. That way it would avoid the fanfare and subsequent disappointments that occurred at Hull, Bradford, Leeds and Hudds last year.

The problem with this one is it is now in the public domain, rightly or not, and the club really need to clarify their position on this subject. By not doing so it generates as much (if not more) fanfare / disappointment than it would if it had been handled in the manner of last years visa debacles.