If the rumour about signing Connor Davies is true, not sure what logic is being applied other than cost. Listed by Dewsbury as a hooker; from memory of his time at Fax he wasn't really big enough for any other position in the forwards.
So looks at the moment that even with a smaller squad we'd be running with 4 hookers, when we've still got the 3 hookers we couldn't keep happy last year. No insight into who's responsible for recruitment at the club but while obviously early days the plan at the moment appears to be letting players go where we have little or no cover and signing others where we're relatively strong. Really hoping for some positive news soon - in recent years the off season has probably been the most exciting part of the year - perhaps we're just trying to reverse this!

Not heard anything Terry but I guess its a forgone conclusion that we will have to go down that route again.

Its playing out exactly as I expected it to. As soon as Wakey refused to pay the original fee it was always going down this route, Fax now have to take less than they wanted or go to tribunal and get screwed over. It was always going to be a bad situation for us and Walmsley sleep walked straight in to Wakefields plan. I don't blame him for wanting to go full time the way he has gone about it though is poor form.

We will get some announcements this week regards new signings but this was never going to be the season where Finn could put his own stamp on the squad, a lot of the business had already been done and now these players are coming available we simply do not have the money to bring them in.

Wakefield refusing to pay the original fee is not what I have heard and the amount of their last offer and what Fax have asked for isn’t a couple of grand either.

I don’t agree with your thinking on how Fax are going to get screwed over at a tribunal either based on the following reasoning.

1.) You have to be a SL club to trigger the release clause of the contract.
2.) Any club deemed to be in SL must pay at least the amount recorded on the contract.
Both are part of the contract, you can’t have one without the other.

That’s what the rule involved states in black and white and is legally binding on all parties including the clubs and the RFL.

How and why would a rugby league tribunal panel vote against it’s own rules in this setting just to favour Wakefield and screw another club.

Looking at the first page on this topic and the contract lengths, there was no way Finn was going to be able to do a full clear out. The costs of paying up those contracts would be massive to the club and as we all know the club is skint.

To be fair they’ve probably done well to move Maher on. The original statement from the club on him leaving was below the belt though. No need to publicly berate him for poor performances. Plenty of other players were below par last year.

Larroyer was the last player to be retained so maybe some new signings will trickle through now.

Although I can’t see there being that many and it looks like we are going with the same pack that was rolled on several occasions last year sadly.

Rhinos

Heard the same on this.

Also heard that the club with the finances they have are trying to get the balancing act right between being competitive on the field (because they know if we’re not then the crowds will drop) and between trying to make progress on the other IMG pillocks requirements, sorry meant pillars ( because they know if they don’t it’s the no ambition and as is forever scenario.)

Great choices er not, because they can’t do both.

I thought the same. Was extremely harsh. Yes, he didn't perform as expected on the pitch however he did put in a hell of a lot of work on the community side of things. To openly scold him in an official club statement was tinpot.

Also - Bradford announcing John Davies at 9am this morning. Another quality player going to a rival. Deflating.