That just wouldn't make any sense

Nope it would be a shocker

Yep. That would be Bleases credibility straight out of the window. Pure clickbait - like Watkins, like Knight, like Hastings - I'd hazard.

Re Gannon, Holroyd and Simpson, like it or not hard decisions might have to be made at some point.

In the case of Gannon the question is not about how good he might be, but whether he should play at all. I know they are being ultra-careful until he's turned 21, but if he keeps getting put out of the game for long periods through head knocks, at some stage he and the club will have to think about him giving it up.

Simpson has missed a hell of a lot of rugby. These are key developmental years, so even assuming he comes back fit next season, he's way behind in terms of experience. Fingers crossed though.

Holroyd's just been a mess one way or another for some time. He's 23 and last season was the first time he's even got close to playing a full season. I'd hope he can improve a lot next year, his lack of punch with the ball is utterly weird to me, he's a big lad, perfect build for a prop and unlike Sangare he seems to move reasonably well. But again, promise or otherwise, at some stage he'll have to be let go if he can't play enough games at a decent quality.

These three are in our top 25, and while it sounds harsh, we can't keep hanging on waiting for players to get fit or find form. SL squads just aren't big enough for that and we've suffered for years from underperforming players hanging around way too long. I'm not saying jettison any of them now, but as rollin thunder says, renewal is another thing altogether.

Actually he didn't say that. He said any player with a less than 50% appearance rate should be moved on "regardless of age or potential." There was no mention of end of contract. Of course number of appearances is a valuable gauge when it comes to contract renewal, but it's rash (and very expensive) to rush to judgement before then.

No, you said any player with less than 50% appearances should be sacked off. Not sure why you think kids like Simpson and Warren should be playing that many games even if fit tbh.

They can be playing reserves or in loan, not getting picked is not the same as being nit even being available, and to clarify
Players who not been available for selection for more than 50% off the time over 2-3 seasons need to “not be renewed” or persuaded to move elsewhere unless they can get and stay fit.

I get the sensitivity over young players but Gannon Simpson never player and Holroyd has huge spells off the field, when is enough time, tough decisions are required.

On rapana, , he is a goal kicker but it would only make sense if either Hall is moving straight into the Corporate role or Handley is off to Catalan. As Arthur said could be clickbait, but the fact Bower has covered it gives it a bit more credence.

The only other reason I could think of is if Miller was looking to go back to Aus and we would use Rapana at FB. Given he’s 35 , it’s all a bit weird.

Miller and Mom are playing a lot better under Arthur.

On Holroyd and Gannon both are OOC at end of 2025, so decisions are coming. It would
Be very sad if both were lost to concussion impacts.
Simpson is squad number 28 and won’t be on much salary , he is still only 20 and was very promising. Let’s hope a good preseason kicks him on again

On the contrary, I think we should be doing everything we can to support our young, talented players, especially when going through tough periods.

Rapana would be a good signing if he wasn't so old, waste of a quota spot that imo