Would be a quality signing.

Worth £750,000 over 3 years? That's a hefty chunk of our cap.

So do you think we should continue spread our cap around a load of average players without any game breakers like the last 2 seasons?

The irony of the posters username has eluded you! We're well rid of Yestin and now you want to sign Yestin2

would be a decent addition at the right price although 250k a year sounds a bit on high side. although it sounds a lot consider that we currently have solomona under contract and have had to pay off tupou who havent played all season plus we had space for bird so we could quite comfortably accomodate 250k under salary cap in addition to players currently in squad assuming solomona goes.

Surely we didn't have to pay off Tupou after the 6 month injured period? If we had, he wouldn't have had to bother challenging it?

Craig Wing?!?!?!??!!!! I wanted him signed years ago when he was still beautiful!!
Don't want him now, he's all knocked about and ugly!!

oops - better change that or I'll get a kicking at the forum tonight!

He's a quality player - hope we don't overspend on him though, we need fleet of foot centres really.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Wing

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Wing

Good job you posted that. I was thinking it was the Craig Wing that sold me a packet of Lockets in the interchange back in 1989.

Can cover 6,7 and 9, current New South Wales origin player and 16 caps for Australia, who wouldn't want to sign him.

actually think we were going pay him six months under normal long term injury clause but he challenged our right to terminate last 18 months of his contract and it actually ended up that we didnt even have to pay him the six months. so we actually didnt have to shell out six months wage that we'd budgeted for. cant imagine tupou being on much less than 100k and solomona will be in 150-200k bracket so those two alone would cover Wings wage and they've barely featured this year.

when you think about it considering those two's wages and cap space we knew we had for Bird then we're operating at a significantly reduced cap compared to most clubs and whilst it certainly doesnt excuse some of the performances weve seen it may go some way to explaining it.

How can Wing not play there? That's just not right!

Were not HTH.

We must have at least the wage amounts of Tupou and Bird, and that must mean we're now a little under cap.

Hood simply stated that we were under the cap. It wouldn't expect him to say any more, especially at a time when we're renegotiating with existing players and trying to recruit new ones.

Me and Adey had a better discussion with Stuart Duffy about this at the end.

front row . ok

i didnt mean reduced as in not spending the majority of it - I meant in terms of a ccouple of players taking a decent chunk but not available to play for virtually the whole season. Admittedly this affects a few teams in terms of long term injuries but we seem to have suffered a bit worse than average, especially this year.

Depends on the influence he had on the side, as for the proportion of cap Robbie and Iestyn were on a figure reputedly close to that each, so it`s hardly uncharted territory.

Are you able to tell us a bit more, or do you need to keep it quiet?

I thought he was mainly a better player at 9.

We have three in Newton, Godwin and Rinaldi.

Wrong move. He is a good player though, but in my opinion we need a 'natural' half back, if theirs such a thing. Or a proven quality half back. Not a 'fill in'.

It just put some more meat on the bones of what had already been raised, and I think we'll both leave it at that? Don't forget Stuart did say to everyone that if anyone wanted to know anything, just ask him. Maybe a few more (not you btw) should do that rather than just spout off on here? Assuming they are brave enough to appear from behind their keyboards.

I would just add though that - regarding matters financial - I suggest I have been pretty close in what I have been saying over recent years. Remember a couple of things that were said by the panel at the meeting:

1. Over all the years of success, the club was losing money.

2. Regarding the current - hopefully temporary - drop in gates, its "not a massive problem" unless it becomes enduring. The biggest implication is for cash flow.

The actions taken in recent years to put the club on a sustainable financial footing may have been unpopular and have had implications, but without them we would not have a club now. Not too hard to achieve success when you spend like there is no tomorrow, but rather harder when you have to live within your means long-term. As I keep saying, I do think people have to judge the situation as we see it now in the context of the financial realities.

Hood pointed out that if SL was a competition judged solely on financial performance, we would now be top. I took this to mean that nearly everyone else is losing money, and that is of course completely unsustainable in the long term.

Hood made the interesting point about sugar daddies - yes of course we would talk to one if one (or a consortium) came forward. Indeed, he is surprised that none has over the last 10-20 years. But he also observed that in the middle of a recession, its quite possible that a sugar daddy could suddenly find he can't afford it any more, and where would that leave the club? The club is NOT in debt to any one individual, unlike others.

I thought the club was as candid as it could be about the finances, and surely people can see from what was said that we are not rolling in money and have to be careful (he said we budget "conservatively"icon_wink.gif but with the present structure we are stable and reasonably OK, which the implication was that we were not going back a few years.

And yes, it was my questions about the finances that Duffy read out too (no surprises there

)

Vossy's just said on the Footy Show that he's staying at Souths 'for now', despite 'interest from Bradford, in the north of England'...

[url=http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/4440970.Bulls_make_big_money_offer_to_Aussie_Test_star/Dave Craven's been reading on here again[/url