pmh wrote:Great news, best and most intelligent player at the club (not a massive endorsement in a team full of thicko's but hey-ho) I am however now completely confused as to how we stand on the quota front.
I'm a little intrigued as to why he'd turn down a two year deal for a one year one, does he think he can continue to be a major force or not?
I'd see it as backing himself to earn that extra year and choosing to stay where he is happy. That said, we'll have maybe paid a premium for the flexibility this gives us - but I think that was wise, if its the case.
He seems a bit peeved, even just in mentioning he is putting it behind him, at the lack of a deal earlier. I assume he is off quota, which gives us a bit more flexibility, but he still takes up a fed-trained spot which itself has to be watched now.
Currently with contracts for 2011:
'Quota/non-fed' (Max 5): Clinton, Dobson, Webster (3)
'Fed-trained' (number, plus number of quota can be no greater than 17): Briscoe, Fox, Ratu, Cockayne, Vella, Fisher, Hodgson (turns 21), Cook, Galea, Newton, Netherton, Murrell (12. 12+3=15).
Club-trained (minimum of 8 ): Watts, Welham, Lovegrove, Taylor (I think), +4.
That only leaves two spots for non-club trained players, to re-sign (Colbon and Walker being the likely candidates, with Wheeldon and Mills seemingly destined to depart) or come from other clubs - rumours of Finch, Lima, Hall and other British players. I begin to suspect that one or two contracted players might be surprise departures - I'm struggling to guess who though.
|
, thanks to the RFL's byzantine rules) and Under 21 is sometimes interpreted a bit strangely. Murrell might be club-trained, as the definition was less, erm, defined circa 2007 I think.