: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:06 pm  

Pemps wrote:

I like Brough but I'm not sure why we're looking at a halfback unless we're getting rid of a hooker. How long is MM contract?

His contract is till 2010.

No I don't see why we're looking at a halfback either.

Sam Tomkins and Thomas Leuluai have formed a brilliant halfback combination these last few weeks and both players have long contracts with the club.

Michael McIlorum has played some superb rugby before he got injured and is looking like a real talent. We have invested a lot into his development and so I can't see us getting rid neither can I see the logic in loaning him out to another club when he is clearly super league standard. I don't see why we should loan him out (as some people suggest) to accommodate another halfback we don't need.

Same with Mark Riddell. He has another two years left to his contract and has also showed signs of real improvement and intent. Initial fears about his fitness have gone after he has put in near 60 minute performances in due to McIlorum's injury. I think it is wishful thinking (well not so much anymore) that he is homesick - certainly seems to be enjoying his rugby to me.

So when you add all that up signing a halfback makes little sense and logic. Especially when you consider the balance of the squad and the fact we need to strengthen in the forwards and not the backs.

: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:13 pm  

Pemps wrote:

I suppose that's a rumour but I'd imagine there would be something more concrete out in the open if that was the case. Surely we'd have heard about interest from Aussie clubs regarding it.

Pure hear say..but hasn't Riddell's Mrs (elect) headed back over to Oz? Would you marry and live that far apart immediately?

[Pemps]

: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:15 pm  

Steinlager wrote:

Pure hear say..but hasn't Riddell's Mrs (elect) headed back over to Oz?

Dunno

Steinlager wrote:

Would you marry and live that far apart immediately?

With or without the benefit of hindsight?

: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:17 pm  

Pemps wrote:

Dunno

With or without the benefit of hindsight?

Very valid point.

: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:21 pm  

Seeing this is the rumour thread some guy on BBC 606 has posted and he's sure of it that we've offered Bradford £200,000 plus S Fielden and K Pryce. First reaction, it's BS but it would be nice were it true, after all were that deal to happen as far as I'm concerned were winners on all fronts. I am pretty confident that Burgess will be leaving the bull's but sadly not for us, I'm sure the lures of manly wont go unheard on his ears.

[Pemps]

: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:24 pm  

LovesToSpooge wrote:

Seeing this is the rumour thread some guy on BBC 606 has posted and he's sure of it that we've offered Bradford £200,000 plus S Fielden and K Pryce. First reaction, it's BS but it would be nice were it true, after all were that deal to happen as far as I'm concerned were winners on all fronts. I am pretty confident that Burgess will be leaving the bull's but sadly not for us, I'm sure the lures of manly wont go unheard on his ears.

Not sure I fully understand what you've written there.

£200k + Fielden & Pryce for Burgess? Is that right? Seems an awful lot of money for burgess even if the players weren't included.

There was a rumour earlier in the season that we were letting them have Nobby and Fielden in exchange for Burgess.

: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:25 pm  

LovesToSpooge wrote:

Seeing this is the rumour thread some guy on BBC 606 has posted and he's sure of it that we've offered Bradford £200,000 plus S Fielden and K Pryce. First reaction, it's BS but it would be nice were it true, after all were that deal to happen as far as I'm concerned were winners on all fronts. I am pretty confident that Burgess will be leaving the bull's but sadly not for us, I'm sure the lures of manly wont go unheard on his ears.

offered all that for who??

come on those two aint that bad to lose all that money and 2 players for nothing in return

: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:28 pm  

He means we've offered them £200,000 to take Fielden and Pryce off us.

: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:31 pm  

Sorry people didn't re read what I'd written before I posted, we've supposedly offered Bradford 200,000 plus Fielden and Pryce for Burgess, that's what I read.

: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:42 pm  

LovesToSpooge wrote:

Sorry people didn't re read what I'd written before I posted, we've supposedly offered Bradford 200,000 plus Fielden and Pryce for Burgess, that's what I read.

I find that difficult to believe. As someone else said, that's a hell of a lot of bread. Maybe the cash and Fielden would be more reasonable. Why would we chuck Pryce in as well? - unless someone's finally decided that he's just not going to make it. Though - on second thoughts, Bradford seem to be very weak in the three-quarters. Maybe they're insisting on gettin Karl back? You never know.