It could be a good bit of buisness if there is a transfer fee involved, we still have Scruton and Hargreaves as the experianced props, and if Kopzcak and Burgess keep improving the way they are we should be ok.

But we're in a position to let our better players leave?

Yeah, because that has got us far in recent years.

Finances dictate that if a player wont be here after 12m and will leave for nothing if a club wants to BUY now then we i dont blame for getting rid

Not saying it is right or he isnt a good player just that money talks in our situation

IMO selling Burgess when we did was the right call

Really? I must have been watching a different pack this year to you. If we lose Lynch he will need replacing IMO. We've been dominated by opposition packs far too often this year and we needed to improve our pack not weaken it. If we lose Lynch and don't replace him or replace him with another Joe average then we can forget about top 8 for 2012.

Yeah it was definatley the right call. I mean selling our best player for a fraction of his true value. If the reported fee's were correct that is.

Who sells Stuart Fielden and then replaces him with Chris Feather?
Who sells Sam Burgess and replaces him with Glenn Hall?
Who sells Lesley Vainikol and replaces him wth Tame Tupou?

Any ideas?

I have to say I think that lynch wont go however I wouldn't be surprised.

Money talks and circumstances dictate

Just because you once owned a sports car doesnt mean you will always be able to afford one

Unless you are the Bulls accountant and can enlighten us to the state of our finances

I have just realised the error of our ways

We sign every international going, make offers for ones that are in contract with other clubs, paying a fee clearly, get them all in on massive contracts and then the tooth fairy credits our bank account so we can pay them and honour the contracts without us going bust

Do you want to email Hood or shall I?

1 - the club that I strongly suspect would have gone to the wall had we not.

2 - the club that had little option when the player had made it clear he wanted away, and the club's former chairman and biggest shareholder (and your hero) very publically engineered the deal.

3 - the club that could clearly no longer offer an increasingly injury-prone player what he wanted financially or playing-wise.

Get real, Mike! The days when we could field a squad that many people could not see how they fitted anywhere near the salary cap are long gone. The days when the club could lose £600k in a year because we had just received the Odsal settlement windfall are long gone. As one of the few clubs without a wealthy backer, we are where we are.

I must confess to being lost at some of the 'logic' in much of this. Can anyone explain the 'benefits' of demanding the last ounce from contracted players when they have made it obvious they don't want to stay? Maybe also, how having de-motivated people who would rather be elsewhere in the squad, benefits performance, because I can't see how that works either.

Have I missed something here?

Has Andy Lynch actually said he wants to leave, doesn't want to spend the rest of his career at the Bulls or that he's looking for one last pay day?

Basically is this thread a whole load of hot air, or is there actually some sort of substance to it?

Played well today. Keep it up Andy as long as your in a Bulls shirt. Rumour at best i would say

Lynch was absolutely outstanding today. Langley did nothing. I top earner I would want rid of!

Langley was disgusting. Falling off tackles, not making yards.

Apparently Richard Agar has told a few Hull fans that the Lynch deal is almost done. His move to Hull was also mentioned by the commentators on BCB today I think. As they say, there's no smoke without fire, so where do we look for a replacement if Andy moves on?

Will be sad if lynch goes, as much as Koppy and Tom are progressing and as reliable scruton and Hargreaves are none of them are as reliable and as talented as lynch. What a mistake bulls will have made if the rumour about him bring pushed out by the board is true to free up money to bring another player in.
I would offload surplus requirements in Langley, platt and Sykes before even contemplating letting lynch go

We can't just kick people like Sykes, Platt and Langley out as they are all under contract. Obviously we would keep Lynch if he was happy to stay, but when a player wants to go and another side match your demands for a transfer fee, the club is left with little option but to sell.

The fact that Leeds signed Richard Moore and Hull are apparently trying to buy a contracted Prop would perhaps suggest that there aren't that many Props readily available on the market right now.

Of course you do, you say we're not selling him.

Of course you do, you say we're not selling him.

I wouldn't begrudge Andy Lynch this move, even though he had a very good game today.

He passed up the chance to make a move when his last contract came around, opting to stay with us. Despite his best efforts the team had been ever less successful. Now he has the chance - late in his career - to make what I guess will be quite a lucrative move, and go to a team that will likely be at least challenging next season.

Really.... I can't blame him for that.

That said, I sincerely hope that the club has a plan B - because a prop quarter of Hargreaves, Scruton, Kopczak and Burgess (with presumably Crossley) as back up is hardly going to frighten the other teams, even though it is workmanlike and (in the case of Koppy and Burgess) likely to improve a bit.

If Lynch goes we need a top quality replacement.


He had a good game today, and even though he is nearing the end of his career he is still one of the best props in the comp.

Langley needs to get his act together for next season though.

So if this deal doe's happen the club need to make a real statement of intent with his replacement or they can forget about getting anywhere near the pledge total.

Certain quarters want Lynch out, i can't fathom why though! So they make up little story's like this to stir it up a bit!

Quite a few go as far as saying Burgess is a better prop, again im at a loss why they think that!