I agree it is a big gamble but one worth taking from an FC point of view, especially when season pass sales at Hull are dropping very very rapidly. We paid over 100k for Joe Westerman and it is only in this season we are starting to reap some rewards from that s I doubt it will be an instant success but one I can see working more then it doesn't.

I believe the Doc has being had with Chase though, who to my knowledge has only played in one SL play off game. I suppose with the selling of Sneyd though he has got some of that money back.

Fact is Hull FC have paid £120k for a player that is on peanuts and has 12 months left to run on his contract. Granted he's had a decent half-a-season, but so have the majority of that Castleford team.

Just to put it into context, when Wigan signed Matty Smith from us they paid us £50k.

Yes, but we were a "distressed seller" at that point and that cash probably kept us afloat while we were digging down the back of the sofa to try & retrieve the Myler money!

I know what you are saying and agree to some extent. But like yourselves we can afford to pay the 100k+ so it is hardly a big deal from our point of view.

Because most of you are.

When did I say that selling Sneyd was deluded? I said that those of you thinking £100k is a good deal are deluded.

£100k for a cash strapped club would have been terrific business, but for a club with the cash to stock pile it isn't.

Most young players will probably go down the Sneyd route in the end for you anyway.

Or we could have paid it for England's future scrum half for years to come.

I see somebody's already pointed out the flaw in your Matty Smith argument.

Is 100k a lot of money for a player who may or may not be a one season wonder? Yes it is. However, we can easily afford it, we are desperate for a half back and whilst he could flop he just just as likely turn us into a top 4 club. So it's a gamble worth taking.

We only need to shift 7 or 8 hundred extra passes next year on the back of this and we're in profit already, and with a guy we can market as a proper scrum half that's not unlikely.

Disappointing to see him leave, although it was inevitable once he was loaned out that he wouldn't return to Salford.

In terms of the fee it is probably a good deal for burn clubs. As for the future, no one really knows how Sneyd will go although he waited long enough at Salford for the chance to have this current 'half a decent season' so you can't really blame him and his agent for being eager to get a deal sorted.

I think he will go well for Hull, whilst at least for a change we have the potential to bring in players of a similar or higher standard in his place, unlike when we have lost players in the past.

*both clubs

Your logic doesn't make sense.

Regardless of how wealthy a Club is, receiving a substantial fee for anyone is good business and not at all deluded. Are you trying to say that because Salford have disposable dosh it would only be a good deal if it was for a great deal more? Do I really need to identify the flaw in that argument too?

If you look around at most SL Clubs you'll find that there's plenty of turnover in their youth. You can't keep all of them after all, just the decent ones. Just look at Wigan, Saints, and Leeds. Teams that have been happy to offload youngsters by the bucketful. If Salford do the same it's somehow a negative though eh?

When considering the £120,000 transfer fee I think you have to take into account that Hull were bidding against others and this obviously pushed up the value. Personally I think the club have done OK to get this considering Sneyd only had 12 months left on his contract.

If we got this much for Marc it makes you wonder what Evalds and Theo could be worth at 23. It may be wise to put this money aside for extended new contracts for our best youngsters.

No flaw to it, he was a scrum half with little time left on his contract and was sold. Granted we werent in as comfortable financial position as we are now, but it's a reasonable comparison.

Tim Smith an ex NRL, Wigan and in-form Wakefield scrum half cost us £75k last season too. That situation alone shows you the risk associated with big value signings.

Right, to make it even more simpler for you, do you think MK would rather have £100k in his already bulging pockets or the form SH in his team next year?



This part's laughable, the juniors Wigan/Leeds/Saints get rid of are their second string youngsters as the best 7 or 8 are in their first team.

I think something else that people forget is that we also have Evalds and Mullaney on the books who have both played HB and in Mullaneys case he did rather well when he did starts in the halves until he got injured.

Has the generator run out of red in Castleford as they seem to have disappeared today, maybe they are out building an effigy of the Doc to burn.

Very good bit of business for Salford and potentially good bit of business for Hull,

I give in.

It's not worth the effort in repeating myself or making cognitive points as you seem to be incapable of rational thought. It's like debating a wet turd, except that the turd has a better understanding of why a Club would sell an unsettled player to a Club who haven't brought their own HB through since, well, what seems like forever.

Let me be the first to concede. I never make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.

one of the best Deals Wire ever did was to Trouser £100 grand off Wigan For Martin Gleeson who was at the time the GB and form centre. Did we need the money? nope, but we got Richie Mathers off them at the same time and Pies laughed their tits off. A few months later Mathers was kissing the Challenge cup trophy at Wembley and Wigan weren't.... then he won another a year later.

To me I think its a good deal for Salford its 100 grand that isn't there to keep the bailiffs from the door like the myler or Ratchford money, and it's not directly Marwans own money and it can be ploughed right back into the club one way or another.

I honestly havent seen that much of Sneyd but I do Raise my eyebrows at the "future England scrum half for years to come" phrase that is being chucked about.....all I do know is (and i'm no Fan of Chase) but I'll be more worried about facing a team with Chase and Dobson as halves than Sneyd and Pryce.

chase and dobson or sneyd and pryce - haha absolutely no comparison AT ALL. If salford can sort their hooking problem (big issue i feel) and get a couple more forwards willing to work as hard as Hansen they will be putting doubts in the minds of other teams. pryce and sneyd wont worry teams at all. Sneyd has done well in a team doing well this season - but hes hardly been wowing crowds. I dont get the big fuss about sneyd tbh, hes decent enough but not stand out -Fages has always impressed me more when i've seen him play.

Good point about the halves.

Another point worth noting while we're making it "more simpler" for 18..whatever he's called is that Marwan wants the club to be self-sustaining rather than relying on him. Selling a player who is unlikely to feature much next season for a reported £100,000 (maybe even more) has got "self-sustaining" written all over it.

You're right about needing a hooker. With Iestyn seemingly far more willing to play young players than Nobby ever was, I hope Gareth Owen comes back from his season long loan and straight into the first team, where I think he belongs. After that, we need an interchange hooker and two props and we'll be OK.

With regards Theo and Marc Sneyd, I think Theo is a steadier player. Marc tends to have more of an impact, but can also make more errors. He also has that incredible left boot, which is something we've really missed this season. I hope he does OK for Hull, but, if the reported transfer fee of upwards of £100,000 is true, I think Marwan has done a cracking piece of business there.

Given the respective league positions of you and Cas, and the one major change in personnel between the two clubs, I wouldn't be bigging Chase up at all!

No, what you mean is you're unable to debate on a fundamental level, instead preferring to try and input an ever increasing amount of variables to try and side step the initial point.

My point, like you, is simple - I don't think £100k for Sneyd represents good value for Salford. My reasons are that A) Whilst the fee would be seen as great business for a cash strapped club, for MK it makes no difference to what he needs in terms of investment (which hopefully will focus on youth going forward as his strategy of marquee signings putting bums on seats has failed this year) and was probably more to do with principle; and B) Sneyd is the form SH in Super League who MK made quite clear he wanted at the club next year.

Now, i'm willing to agree to disagree, but don't try to patronise and belittle, it does you no favours.

No. What I mean is what I mean.

I choose not to debate with an idiot. There's a difference. You are unwilling or unable to see my points, and your points make no sense if you understand what I've been saying. Therefore it's pointless carrying on.

I'm sure you'll want the last say on the topic, most sociopaths do, so I'll concede that to you. Fill your boots.

Not sure who that was aimed at, but the people suggesting Chase and Dobson are a more potent half-back partnership than Sneyd and Pryce are fans of Warrington and Huddersfield. Maybe you should take it up with them, but I wouldn't suggest using your 'relative positions' argument.

Marwan wants the club to be self-sustaining. He's said so more than once. Selling a player who is unlikely to feature much in the first team next year for a 6 figure sum sounds self-sustaining to me. Leaving him to fester on the sidelines, on the other hand, sounds like a poor return on the club's investment.

As part of the 'self-sustaining' aim, Marwan wants the club to produce more of its own players. The first step is to make the club a more attractive proposition, hence the marquee signings. The 'failure' of this season (a failure which has seen attendances increase by somewhere in the region of 50% over last season) was more down to errors by a previous coach. He also said from day one that 2015 would be a bigger year for the club.

With regards him wanting Marc at the club next year, he could, if he so wished, have asked Marc to honour his contract. He didn't. So, whether he really meant he wanted him at the club next season or whether it was a way of ensuring anyone who signed him would have to pay a substantial sum is open to debate. Hull have paid a substantial sum, so I'm siding with the second of those possibilities. I'm sure you disagree.

I'd hate to disappoint.



So because I don't agree with your points, and you don't agree with mine, I'm an idiot? Bless.

I hope you're not involved in running a business in any way...

As mentioned numerous times, Sneyd has 12 months on his contract and wanted out. He may well be 'the form SH in Super League' - regardless, he wouldn't have been first choice on his return to the club and would have had limited game time for one year before inevitably moving on for nothing at the end of the year. We'd be paying the salary of an unhappy bench player/backup when that money could be better spent elsewhere.

Koukash may well have said that he wanted to keep him (in an ideal world we would, but you're limited in terms of what you can do with a squad) but this was more to do with playing hardball. He rightly doesn't want to appear as weak by letting a player/his agent dictate things to the club. It was simply his way of being the one in control of the situation.

May well turn out to be a win for both teams but I'd give us the slight edge at the moment in terms of who has the better end of the deal based on the fact that we don't know whether Sneyd can show this level of performance consistently or whether he's simply looked good in a team that's got success from the sum of its parts rather than outstanding individuals.