p5 of todays RLE has a piece in saying Murphy has turned down a contract at Wakey and we're going to make him an offer. It also says that salary cap pressure would then force us to release three players to Wakey.



That must be some salary cap pressure to release 3 players. Raleigh & Kirmond combined will be on a pretty good whack, far more than it would take to secure Murphy. Perhaps there are some other irons in the fire as well.



TBH I don't know why we would want Murphy. I can't see him starting unless someone gets injured.

Don't know too much about Murphy tbh,not watched him that closely.



Would be to see a bit disappointed to see Kyle go,from the little I have seen of him I think he has the potential to play pivot.Quick on his feet,dummying as he goes,can kick,and has a decent enough long pass in him.Small guy,suppose will always be a 'spot' in defence.



Andy has been a fine servant to the club.Kirmo can be a dynamic player when he's on his game.Suppose with Chan coming in they may be looking at different options.

Kirmond misses too many tackles and it seems that Brown can't coach it out of him. 5 misses Friday night according to RLE, the most by any of our players. 17 tackles, 5 misses, 2 hit ups & 18 metres.

Raleigh got through some right tackling, 33 tackles with 2 misses. 8 hit ups and 41 metres. 1 error, 1 penalty conceded. It compares favourably with Larne, who has faded something shocking in the second half of the season IMO.



They've all lost mongrel, all of them.

I wouldn't dispute any of that Dan.



I reckon if you could have a mix of the 3 players you mention you would then have the complete back rower,and therein maybe lies the problem.

Murphy not going anywhere, the article in rugby league express just based on some misguided internet rumour.

Heard that if those 3 go, Giants will be after Brett Ferres at Cas, but obviously would have to pay a fee as he is under contract.

Hmm. Weird things going on at the moment. Weird, weird things.

Aint they just. The squad is looking decidedly thinner if these 3 go, in addition to the ones confirmed for next years challenge. A few injuries and the Giants will be in trouble, if they dont bring in some squad players. Looking at the kids and 2nd team, they don't appear to be good enough to step up yet.

I can understand why we would be looking towards letting a backrower or two go. We have Gilly, LO'D, Chan, Fooey, Fergy, Raleigh, Kirmond, Cording, Fairbank, Sarsfield, Molloy and then Bruno who is (or maybe isn't now) going to be playing second row. That's a hefty pile of second rowers.



What would Ferres bring?



What does Murphy potentially bring that would improve us?

Why sign another second row

I could understand it if we were after Huby

What i am strtuggling with is the fact that Nathan Brown said that we have been outmuscled in our last few games.



As we are losing Griffin why would we keep buying second rowers who are smaller than the props we are letting go. Surely that will add to the problem of us being outmusuled by other teams.



Chan and Ferres vs Griffin and Raleigh does not seem logical to me. The only thing i can think linking in to my thread on the rule changer is that we are moving away from a forward dominated game plan to one of fast, ball playing, attacking type play ala Leeds and Wire.

If Uncle Ken has waved his magic chequebook at Murphy, he'll be warming the bench at Huddersfield next season, without a doubt.



The 3 players that are rumoured to be coming the other way don't make much sense though, particularly Wood, who would offer no improvement on what we currently have.

Dont agree, Wood looked quality before he did his hammy, would improve you no end if he gets a good run of games. Raleigh would improve your pack definately and kirmond has pace when put through a gap and deceptivly strong. Defo improve on what you have now.

Well we ran out of steam playing the power game,though for me it was great to watch early in the season.tbf NB did try and rotate.So maybe it's time to try another approach,the type you mention.