1, Because it's about time.
2, It sends the message that you'll be paid what you are worth to the team, so you need to earn your keep. This can only be a good thing.

Agree. His value to our team is very significant IMO. Particularly his goal-kicking as we don't score enough tries.

Correct. If we broke the structure for Tickle, I'd be pleased. The whole international selection increment thing is bollox anyway, given the random nature of selections by coaches past and present. Any player's worth is subjective, but Tickle's value to us is very high and if we needed to up our offer to stop him going to Huddersfield, I'd be happy. British players of his calibre are at a premium in the open market.

you only have to look back 2 games to crusaders to see the value tickle brings to the team

You could argue that if we broke the structure for Orford or Monaghan in the first place we wouldnt be so reliant on a kicker?

How is Orford's injury record again? About the same as Long's, so the only difference would be the fact we wouldn't have Moa this year either.

Whilst I agree in principle and am in support of us breaking the structure to get certain players, it has to be in the right circumstances. I fully believe that the amount we'll have gone over our budget by on Tickle's deal will have been far less than the respective amounts for those two, and he offers more than enough value to justify it. I can't think of another goal-kicker to touch him who plays as regularly and to the same level consistently, and would genuinely be available in the current market.

Add in the fact that he doesn't need a non-fed spot and he's quite possibly the best value player we have.

Maybe Orford was a poor example to use.

Putting Tickle out of the equation too my main point i guess is that i'm wondering why FC have decided to change their approach now and not last year or not next year?

Have we decided that our wage structure needs an overhaul to be competetive?
Have we secretly never spent upto the cap and now decided to do so?

Maybe they haven't just decided to do this and it is something that has been in the pipeline for a while but were unable to implement earlier due to the players contracts that still had time to run and factoring in all other issues maybe now is the best time to change etc. Plus they cleared some of the decks last season with the departure of a number of last seasons players and this could all be part of a restructuring plan that has been brought in by Agar when given the job, maybe even a reason why he was given a renewed deal so early due to plans for the future?

I would still think that if the right player became available then it would be possible to adapt the wage structure to an extent but not by paying way over the odds.

I echo what Chris71 says. The HDM article hints at it being Agar that's pushing this, and it was also suggested that the last 2 coaches have not been involved in that side of dealings, so it looks like it's something he's gone to the board about. It quite possibly was in place last year but with less room to manoeuvre with the contract situations at that time. Orford is the only one I can think of that we were outbid for last year, and is rumoured to be on silly money, so I'd say we got that one right, and the only player who was retained from last year in questionable circumstances IMO was Cusack, and he was another offered less money than his expiring deal. The more I think about it, the more likely it seems that it's come from Agar. If so, consider my cap doffed.

Hull signed Long about three months before Bradford signed Orford.

Think Orford was on and off the market for a long while though IIRC, messing about with whether or not he wanted to leave Manly. There were plenty of rumours about him throughout last season (and a lot of calls for us to go after him on here), but I think he was just fishing for a big deal and we weren't willing to get drawn in so lined up Long instead.

[iAnd quite rightly so[/i

Absolutely.

surely that depends on whether orford does come back next year or not as his and long's statistics are remarkably similar this season.

I would think it being that we have now offered him 'international' wages, i wouldnt think we would have given him miles over what we valued at,but had to adjust his wage up to retain. top of my head maybe say another 20k/30k to the banding that we would have done

But one takes up a limited non-fed spot and allegedly gets a fair bit more money. Add in that even before the benefit of hindsight, it was unknown how/if Orford would adapt to SL but Long was proven for a number of years and I personally think we made a very astute signing.

What worries me more is the fact that we offload Dowes and make Fozzard an offer. NOT the direction we should be heading IMO (actually both Hull clubs did).

Fozzard???

FOZZARD! FFFFOZZARD?
Should you be smoking that stuff at work Den?

Apart from those years where we went over it you mean?

True mate. And Wakey. Opted for Cas as he was fed up of commuting on the motorway and they put in best offer.

Dowes has signed for the Bulls, the source, my friends son at Rovers has the same agent.

Dowes has signed for the Bulls, the source, my friends son at Rovers has the same agent.

There seems to be an echo in here.

Fair point.