Have we not potentially missed a trick though? I mean, a club you would guess are one of the richest in the world want an asset contracted to us and we appear to have let him go for nowt?

Point taken that he didn't want to stay as he was "homesick" and his performance on the field reflected this - but do you think we have been a little niaive in letting him play for another side? I mean, could we not have released him from his contract and let him go back home with a caveat somewhere that he cannot play rugby league for anybody else? I mean, officialy he left becuase he was homesick, and it was nothing to do with the Bronchos coming in for him, wasn't it? If all he wanted to do was return home he could have gone with our blessing, freeing up a quota space and his wage - but I don't understand how we have come out of it with "nothing" (previous comments accepted).

His termination contract includes clauses restricting him from playing this side of the globe. There are no mechanisms for transfer fees between the countries and so we have the best deal available - the saving of a lot of wasted money propping up a prop that doesn't want to play.

I also don't think it would be the right thing to do to try and prevent him from earning a wage in his own country doing the job he is trained to do.

Well I suppose we will have to agree to disagree, still stand by we could potentially have done better given he wanted to go and the bronchos wanted him - and they're not exactly short of cash it would be fair to assume.

I appreciate we have to send out a message that we are 'compassionate' towards players (for want of a better word) but I reckon this could be counter productive - "sign for Wakey if nowt better's on the table, soon as interest picks up in you sod off with no consequences.... "

OK - turn it around - let's say he was on £80k pa. He was approx half way through this year's contract, so if we don't release him, we still pay £40k for an under-performing player who is causing disruption and un-certainty in the dressing room.

I'd say we were £40k better off, and with a stronger team, in that scenario!

I don't believe for a single nanosecond that there are "no mechanisms for transfer fees btween the two countries" anyone can transfer money from one bank to another bank practicaly anywhere in the planet, and also the rabbitohs also managed to pay the bulls compensation for taking burgess early.
I also believe we have been naive in our dealings over the tronc affair, and while I agree in principal with not paying a stubborn player, there are sanctions that can be taken under employment law that could have been used in our intrests, and the point of saving money does the squad no good at all if it is not reinvested.
As for brough I'm sure he would have played on, the facts behind whatever rumours re his involvement with or without banned products aside, and we would arguably have a few more points on the board.
That said I feel this has been done to death, and while I am happy to get behind the club, we all have long memories and it won't be long before it's all brought back to bare.
Class is perminant, form is temporary, and supporters............

TRB is spot on (IMO).

The club is far better off without him and will save paying his wages.
The Captain of the club publicly states his agreement.

Obviously it helps that we have just thumped our latest opponents, but despite this I have to agree if he didnt want to be here - get shut. Simple as.

Also, in the longer term view, it's good to have friends in high places (like at the Broncos) so that at some future date they may be willing to scratch our back so to speak e.g. player recommendations, loan players etc.

That doesn't address the issue put forward about releasing him due to homesickness and thus terminating his contract, costing us nowt, and putting him and the broncos in a position where if they want him to play for them they have to compensate us in some form. Is there a reason this wasn't done?
I can't say i'm particularly d either way but i'm still unsure following your response to TD

Regarding Tronc say we have forced him to see out his contract of the year. His wife was homesick and returned home but he was froced to stay. He is an overseas player so will have lots of ex team mates that play in Oz. Or if we withhold his registration etc. How do you feel this will effect our success in attracting future overseas players. One of the major factors you will see when a player signs is such and such told me what a great club it is and so I signed.

Poaching reconeded us, Frank Watena recommendeds us, etc I am not saying let players walk all over us but this has to be considered that we support families that don't settle.

So we had to let them go as JD said. Regarding replacements we can just go out and sign anyone we want can we? Who is around and willing to come that is of any quality?

There are quite a few more who have and will in the future, that sort of goodwill is "priceless" to a club like ours.

JD is 100% correct.

Every SINGLE club in Australia is short of cash Tommy.