The Transfer Rumour Mill Thread

[LeytherRob]

1 minute ago, phiggins said:

I rate all three of GOB, Brierley and Briscoe. I only say what I say on Briscoe based on what I've seen this season. Opposing teams will complete their sets, kick and when we're relying on our backs to do some of the work for the forwards in the first few tackles, he tends to get dominated in the tackle and pushed back. He also turns 34 next year. So if there was anyone in our backline that would be replaced, I'd pick him. But, like the rest of them, he's been very good. But it's rare you keep the same 13 season after season.

O'Brien has probably had two poor games all season. Wigan away, and then the play off game. But he's generally been good under a high ball and has got a good number of assists. He also seems to have a better kicking game than either of our half backs. That said, I think Brierley is better, so I wouldn't be disappointed if we tried to sign him. I just think the two areas that clearly needed to improve this season was the strength of the bench, and our right hand side. 

I'll be interested to see how our right side performs with Milford or another NRL halfback playing that side. Whilst Reynolds is solid, his lack of agility means defences can pay less attention to him and cover the edge better. When defences worry about a halfback stepping and going through the line, they tend to leave gaps elsewhere.

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, LeytherRob said:

I'll be interested to see how our right side performs with Milford or another NRL halfback playing that side. Whilst Reynolds is solid, his lack of agility means defences can pay less attention to him and cover the edge better. When defences worry about a halfback stepping and going through the line, they tend to leave gaps elsewhere.

In Briscoe's defence for most of the season his centre has been Hardacre he has not had that much service from 'run it back infield Zac" never mind quality service, now had Briscoe had a Ricky Leutele inside of him?

[phiggins]

47 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

In Briscoe's defence for most of the season his centre has been Hardacre he has not had that much service from 'run it back infield Zac" never mind quality service, now had Briscoe had a Ricky Leutele inside of him?

Harkaker and Briscoe have been surprisingly disjointed in attack. Not sure Hardaker has an assist to his name this season, with attempts regularly resulting in Briscoe overrunning it, or being too deep. To keep on topic of this thread, I've heard one or two mentions for both of them to Featherstone next year. Though not from anything of much credibility, and would be surprised if both were to leave.

Status of Luetele will have a big effect on recruitment as well.

[Harry Stottle]

5 minutes ago, phiggins said:

Harkaker and Briscoe have been surprisingly disjointed in attack. Not sure Hardaker has an assist to his name this season, with attempts regularly resulting in Briscoe overrunning it, or being too deep. To keep on topic of this thread, I've heard one or two mentions for both of them to Featherstone next year. Though not from anything of much credibility, and would be surprised if both were to leave.

Status of Luetele will have a big effect on recruitment as well.

I can see the sense I them going to Fev - should they get promotion - being local lads, haven't both got 2 year contracts at Leigh?

 

[Damien]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

In Briscoe's defence for most of the season his centre has been Hardacre he has not had that much service from 'run it back infield Zac" never mind quality service, now had Briscoe had a Ricky Leutele inside of him?

I said throughout his time at Wigan that Hardaker is never a centre. I don't particularly rate him at full back either as I prefer a ball playing full back. I was gutted when we signed him and was glad to see the back of him.

Edited October 6, 2023 by Damien

[M j M]

Hardaker is an awful centre. He's a great running full back and is good on the wing but his passing and decision making aren't good enough at centre. Tommy B must be so frustrated at finding himself outside him (Ryan Hall was mostly stuck with him when he briefly played centre at Leeds).

[idrewthehaggis]

Ken Sio retained at Salford on a one year extension.

[Gates1]

4 hours ago, M j M said:

Hardaker is an awful centre. He's a great running full back and is good on the wing but his passing and decision making aren't good enough at centre. Tommy B must be so frustrated at finding himself outside him (Ryan Hall was mostly stuck with him when he briefly played centre at Leeds).

He's passing game was decent from what I saw at Cas in 2017, put plenty of tries on for Eden and Co.

Some aspects of his decision making less so like

[Harry Stottle]

6 hours ago, Damien said:

I said throughout his time at Wigan that Hardaker is never a centre. I don't particularly rate him at full back either as I prefer a ball playing full back. I was gutted when we signed him and was glad to see the back of him.

Totally agree with you Damien, never a FB or a centre as long as he has a hoke where the sun don't shine.

[Gates1]

2 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Totally agree with you Damien, never a FB or a centre as long as he has a hoke where the sun don't shine.

Hardaker never a fullback

[Chrispmartha]

https://twitter.com/leedsrhinos/status/1710417458979328460?s=46

[GUBRATS]

Interesting reading , my personal opinion is with our lack of pace on the wing , but huge experience , we need to create an extra yard of space , our centres and second rowers have done that admirably this season , assisted by Lam,Reynolds and O Brien , Lam uses a step whereas Reynolds has more strength and runs a more direct line , very happy with all of them , and hope we retain all of them for next year 

[M j M]

 

[Chrispmartha]

Quality signing that. An upgrade on Macdonald.

[Tommygilf]

Talented signing, question marks over his injury thjs year but hopefully that won't reoccur!

[The Blues Ox]

Widdop to Halifax seems to be gathering pace as does Walmsley not to Wakefield.

[Tommygilf]

Interesting article on the situation at Salford

 

[EagleEyePie]

28 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Interesting article on the situation at Salford

 

I'm really surprised Matt Shaw has gone with that take as I thought he was pretty clued up. Every man and his dog (except seemingly Matt Shaw) knew that signing Brodie Croft to such a long term deal served only one real purpose, which was to give them a bit of leverage to request a decent transfer fee when he leaves. It's not a guarantee of a big fee, but it definitely makes it more likely.

Salford's financial issues and Brodie Croft's extended contract aren't really linked. If nobody came in with a transfer offer they'd allow him to leave for free if his contract was so unaffordable and there would be plenty of clubs willing to take him.

I get that he's saying Salford haven't been transparent about their financial difficulties and it's part of a broader point but it just seems odd that he's criticising them for something that actually seems quite sensible given their position. 

[Chrispmartha]

3 minutes ago, EagleEyePie said:

I'm really surprised Matt Shaw has gone with that take as I thought he was pretty clued up. Every man and his dog (except seemingly Matt Shaw) knew that signing Brodie Croft to such a long term deal served only one real purpose, which was to give them a bit of leverage to request a decent transfer fee when he leaves. It's not a guarantee of a big fee, but it definitely makes it more likely.

Salford's financial issues and Brodie Croft's extended contract aren't really linked. If nobody came in with a transfer offer they'd allow him to leave for free if his contract was so unaffordable and there would be plenty of clubs willing to take him.

I get that he's saying Salford haven't been transparent about their financial difficulties and it's part of a broader point but it just seems odd that he's criticising them for something that actually seems quite sensible given their position. 

It was blindingly obvious that his long term contract was a way of safeguarding their financial position so that when he left (which was inevitable) they got a decent fee for him. Matt Shaw is talking nonsense. Croft will have known this also.

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, EagleEyePie said:

I'm really surprised Matt Shaw has gone with that take as I thought he was pretty clued up. Every man and his dog (except seemingly Matt Shaw) knew that signing Brodie Croft to such a long term deal served only one real purpose, which was to give them a bit of leverage to request a decent transfer fee when he leaves. It's not a guarantee of a big fee, but it definitely makes it more likely.

Salford's financial issues and Brodie Croft's extended contract aren't really linked. If nobody came in with a transfer offer they'd allow him to leave for free if his contract was so unaffordable and there would be plenty of clubs willing to take him.

I get that he's saying Salford haven't been transparent about their financial difficulties and it's part of a broader point but it just seems odd that he's criticising them for something that actually seems quite sensible given their position. 

Its sensible IF they get the transfer fee they need.

Leeds United did similar up to 2004. Then the players all weren't worth the transfer fees and they couldn't afford their wages either. It nearly killed the club.

By having this info out there also fundamentally harms Salford's selling position. Why buy Croft now for a significant fee when you could wait, let them either offload for next to nothing because they can't afford him, or go into administration because they can't afford him and pick him up for a low fee then too? The last thing any club wants to be is a desperate seller.

[EagleEyePie]

7 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Its sensible IF they get the transfer fee they need.

Leeds United did similar up to 2004. Then the players all weren't worth the transfer fees and they couldn't afford their wages either. It nearly killed the club.

By having this info out there also fundamentally harms Salford's selling position. Why buy Croft now for a significant fee when you could wait, let them either offload for next to nothing because they can't afford him, or go into administration because they can't afford him and pick him up for a low fee then too? The last thing any club wants to be is a desperate seller.

If Salford can't afford his wages they can allow him to leave for free to another club. There are enough interested parties already and the lack of good quality halves in Super League means he's going to be wanted by other clubs. It seems very unlikely that Salford wouldn't be able to offload him at all unless he picked up a serious long term injury.

I agree about the potential transfer fee being a lot less now that it could have been. That's why I said it was never a guarantee of a big fee, or even a guarantee of a fee at all, but it does give them the best chance of receiving one. If it turns out Croft leaves for free they haven't lost anything compared to if he was on a one year deal. They miss out on potential money but it was never a guarantee.

They must have budgeted for being able to keep Croft until the end of the season at least, otherwise they'd have allowed him to leave before the transfer deadline. If it turns out they can't afford him then not releasing him when they had the chance was the mistake. They could have allowed him to leave at any point up until the deadline.

I think Salford becoming a desperate seller is because things have become even worse than anticipated but there's more than just Brodie Croft on their salary cap so I'm not sure he alone can be pinpointed as an issue. If players like Sio, Watkins, Lafai, Burgess and Ackers aren't also on decent money they want new agents.

[Chrispmartha]

Leeds will pay the fee and get Croft IMO. He’s just what we need and both clubs know it so it suits both parties, all depends on what Croft thinks.

[DG70]

I know Salford have had something of a purple patch in the last few years but moving forward something has to give, it's become a 'Super League' club in all but name.

[phiggins]

On 07/10/2023 at 11:02, EagleEyePie said:

If Salford can't afford his wages they can allow him to leave for free to another club.

Unless there's something written into his contract, the player would still be entitled to some sort of pay off from Salford, if they choose not to honour the contract.

[phiggins]

On 06/10/2023 at 23:32, GUBRATS said:

Interesting reading , my personal opinion is with our lack of pace on the wing , but huge experience , we need to create an extra yard of space , our centres and second rowers have done that admirably this season , assisted by Lam,Reynolds and O Brien , Lam uses a step whereas Reynolds has more strength and runs a more direct line , very happy with all of them , and hope we retain all of them for next year 

Feel that Reynolds' best contributions have come when Asiata wasn't on the field, and he was first receiver. (e.g. Second try at Wembley, try at Saints). When he can concentrate on executing a set play, he does ok. When he's wider, and has to make a call of which option to take, he flounders a bit imo.  If he is moving to Fev, they might have a more suitable role for him, with a running stand off playing outside him.

As for the second rowers, I was amazed that Hughes kept his place until the end of the season. His involvement in the two tries conceded at Wembley would've seen him training with the u16s if I was in charge. Surprised Holmes didn't go back there, where he played during the long winning run.