Kosh wrote:Must admit this has become rather puzzling. If the deal is done pending a visa, why not just say so? Particularly if a visa isn't seen to be an issue. I understand the original theory that it was to avoid embarrassment if he didn't get a visa for some reason, but the longer this drags on the more counter-productive that strategy appears to be.
Mrs Barista wrote:Particularly when his agent says categorically that he's signed. Why not just say he's signed subject to visa/work permit like everyone else, and just say the rather unpredictable visa process is taking longer than expected?
Secrecy would be best, but it is hard to keep a secret for long. You're are then left with going for the fanfare or downplaying it, which just invites more questions. If there is a problem it is just like choosing between oils and water colours to paint a car crash.
If he comes, job done. If he can't we'll have to look elsewhere - an open quota spot and spare cash on the cap isn't the worst way to enter a long season, especially given NRL players' propensity to need to, ahem, escape controversy. The lesson we should learn from the experiences of Hudds, Leeds, Hull and Bradford is to move on quickly, if we can, should there be a problem. I suspect he'll come, but I'd be slightly (if pleasantly) surprised if he plays against Salford now.
Did he not get unveiled then....flippin heck it is starting to resemble crockergate 
