From what I heard he asked for another year but the club declined saying that nobody was getting an extension at the moment. He would've stayed if his contract had been extended to 2013.



I'll be keeping my powder dry on this until we see who his replacement is going to be.

Depends who they are IMO, players like Burgess and Whitehead and other quality youngsters should be negotiated well in advance of the middle of the season that their contracts finish. They should be given long contracts aswell. I reckon about 18 months before their current deal runs out, like Leeds and Hudds do, and tie them up for 4-5 years aswell.

Spot on imo.



Wigan didn't hang around with Tomkins, Hudds didn't with McGilvary etc.

Lynch's replacement has been identified but cant be finalised until the quota issue is sorted.

Hope this doesn't hurt us like the Orford issue did last year

which quota issue? jeffries or sammut. Bit worrying if were basing our recruitment on possibility of sammut getting dispensation unless club have been told something already. If we wait and hope he'll get it then he doesnt we're left scrabbling round for players late in off season when everyones sorted for next season.

This isn't a criticism of the club with regards to selling Lynch as I can see why they've done it and if the right replacement is identified as kingmonkey suggests then I'm in favour. However, why does the club appear so passive in these matters? Where is the 'Hood demands decision from RFL' headline in the RLW? At times we're so meek it's pitiable.

tend to think its a case of we're saying what we can publically. Seem to remember when Hull KR were discussing Willie Masons status with RFL, they had to resort to legal means to get RFL to agree with Hull KRs interpretation of the quota rules. Suspect we may be in same boat and either going through legal channels or waiting on a RFL board meeting for a decision. In which making a fuss in press would maybe be counter-productive.

Think our case will be that all players registered with Crusaders at time of dispensation are entitled to it. Sammut would qualify in that case as he doesnt become a Bulls player until Nov. RFL may be trying to argue that dispensations only apply to Crusaders players who were going to be playing for Crusaders in 2012 season at time that Crusaders withdrew their application. If that interpretation is correct then we're on dodgy ground as Sammuts contract was probably registered by then. Did any of crusaders other overseas players agree a deal to move clubs before Sammut and did they get the dispensation?

Something I just noticed while reading hull board that could have a bearing on our recruitment if correct. Apparently heremeai (SP) has been granted fed trained status by RFL because he played for Leigh in 2006 before the non-fed quota was brought in in 2008. I always understood the fed trained exemptions were only for players in SL when the the non fed quota was introduced and they lost the exemption as soon as they left SL. IF RFL are going to allow any player who had a stint in English leagues (not just SL as leigh were in NL when heremaia played for them) before 2008 an exemption to be fed trained then that potentially opens up a lot of options in terms of recruitment, particularly when jeffries passport comes through.

Why do I get the feeling that this is going to go pear shaped?

Don't really think it will, as we only need one out of two to come through. To be honest, my gut feeling about Sammutt is that we won't get it (no actual reason, but it would be just our luck) Jeffries is done though and just awaiting the paperwork as I understand it.

Why can't we just de-register Jeffries, sign this over-seas replacement Prop (if it is a Prop) then re-register Jeffries when he gets his passport in Nov/Dec in time for next season??



Then we can deal with the Sammut issue separately...