Quite the dilemma for the player himself. On one hand he can have a jab he doesn't agree with but enjoy life in the South of France. Or he could avoid the jab and get to play half way up a hill in a deprived former mill town in the UK. Personally speaking if it meant getting to live and work in the South of France I'd let them jab me in the meat and veg.

We already have unvaccinated players we haven't released

I doubt we would be releasing them. Kear said he'd advise the board not to re-sign them.

Is the issue here that the clubs stance is to sign players ideally vaccinated to protect players/people/society etc or is it also they don’t want to sign players, pay them a wage and find they are unavailable for any game in France as they can’t get in, similar to what happened with Batley in plays off last year when several players couldn’t go as they weren’t jabbed. This year we could sign Ford or the like, if it’s the latter and this wouldn’t impact anything

For me it's the first point that is more important - and Kear clearly mentioned this in his interview on the matter. The issue of availability for games in France doesn't apply at the moment but if we got an away draw in the cup it would have an impact.

Unvaccinated people are more likely to spread the virus around than vaccinated people. That means they're more likely to infect their teammates and the friends and family of those they mix with. Unless they have a medical exemption we shouldn't be signing or re-signing those that aren't vaccinated.

Undecided on this one. I've had all 3 and would encourage anyone to get one.

I'm terms of us signing players who aren't vaccinated, I believe the rules are now, if any one of them have a contact with a positive person, or live within the same household and are unvaccinated, they have to isolate, whereas those who have had a jab don't. This is particularly an issue with us being a part time, as players who come into contact with positive people numerous times throughout the season.

On the other hand Ford is the best player in this division and I can't imagine he'd be signing a contract where he would be required to also be on a building site.

If we sign him I wouldn't be outraged though. How can I get angry at a rugby player not wanting the jab, and go on about protecting us and the NHS, when 80k-100k of NHS workers haven't had the jab (and I work in the health care sector)

And up next on radio 4...

I've had three jabs and had covid in the last ten days.

Though mild, the impact on my fitness has been massive. I'm negative now but the fitness tracker I have has shown the impact is still there and I can still feel it in my chest. I'd imagine if that scenario repeats within a team the impact is not the loss of players for a week but probably you'll need to factor in a reduced effectiveness for a month whilst they work to recover their fitness.

Would it be worth the risk?

In the hospital I work in we've worked incredibly hard to get staff vaccinated. We've had Q&A sessions with the chief pharmacist and medical director and these have really helped. I think having access to trustworthy sources is a big issue when a lot of people get their news from social media. RL clubs are unlikely to have access to this kind of resource.

Quite the moral maze. Where is Ryan Hampshire btw? Add in the fact that we have a young half back who provides a real passing threat. And Kear's comments, which I agree with, I don't quite see it happening.

However, is this evidence that our esteemed board have the resources at hand to make such a signing?

I'm not sure where DutchBull gets his information. It's pretty thin evidence if we go by one poster on here.

Hampshire seems to only be interested in a SL offer and some Wakey fans seem to suggest he's one of the un vaxxed but that's not confirmed.