Clough and Farnworth are presumably COVID isolation related, as that is what the club said in the 21-man squad release when they were first missing. There’s essentially a 17 day isolation period for players, as they have to isolate for 10 days as per government guidelines, and then have another 7 days to integrate back in to training as per RFL return to play protocols. Finnigan said that Dwyer is struggling to be available due to work commitments.
You sure about that regarding Clough and Farnworth, James? They've been named in the squad in the games missed recently and Finnigan certainly implied (if not said outright) that they had both had injuries.
Finnigan said that Dwyer is struggling to be available due to work commitments.
Why sign a player with so much availability issues? Surely it’s be better for both parties now to part ways
Because if we don’t sign players people say ‘why don’t we sign someone’.
I assume that the club knew Dwyer had / has work commitments when they signed him and decided that he could still add value to the squad. It is part of the deal for all semi-professional clubs and always has been as far back as I can remember.
I assume that the club knew Dwyer had / has work commitments when they signed him and decided that he could still add value to the squad. It is part of the deal for all semi-professional clubs and always has been as far back as I can remember.
How does a player not playing any games add value to the squad ?
If Farnworth and Clough had to isolate due to covid they wouldn't be allowed to be named in the 21 man squad. Getting over covid is a possibility as it takes some people longer than others, but who knows.
Edge was 18th man on Sunday, he was standing on the side lines. If Dwyer can't attend training and/or games due to work commitments then we don't have to pay him, you have to train to meet the terms of your contract. Again however this is just speculation that he is struggling due to work, so again who knows?
How do you know that?
- About it been nothing to do with the pitch that last post was for.
Must be a chance that Dwyer’s work situation has changed since he signed on. Hard to believe we would have signed him if player and club knew he would be rarely able to play!
I assume that the club knew Dwyer had / has work commitments when they signed him and decided that he could still add value to the squad. It is part of the deal for all semi-professional clubs and always has been as far back as I can remember.
How does a player not playing any games add value to the squad ?
Fair point, although I suspect that when we signed him both he and the club would have thought that he might be free for the odd game or two.
I assume that the club knew Dwyer had / has work commitments when they signed him and decided that he could still add value to the squad. It is part of the deal for all semi-professional clubs and always has been as far back as I can remember.
How does a player not playing any games add value to the squad ?
Fair point, although I suspect that when we signed him both he and the club would have thought that he might be free for the odd game or two.
And that would, presumably, be reflected in the contract payment.
Not sure how the contracts are structured for semi-pros these days.
Back in the day, it was a flat rate plus bonuses for wins - an amount for a home win and a bit more for away wins, plus bonuses for progress in the cups. Doubt it is still the same as the world has moved on since the 60’s and 70’s but, like I say, I have no idea what’s in place now
Free for the odd game or 2? So according to this message board we have signed a prop who isn't really a prop he's a coach. A hooker who is out for the entire season and a 2nd rower on the proviso he's available for 1 or 2 games.
I think that's why we need communication from the club to keep us updated. If we have a 25 man squad with no academy or reserves, no way would we have signed a player that isn't free to play. We had no back rowers on the bench last week and basically had to run with 2 subs. Obviously situations can change, like with O'Neil getting a new job and that's part of part time RL now, but i don't believe we would of signed a player going into the season knowing he can't play.
We could have easily utilised all the subs. Tyrer could have been moved to 2nd row with Brookes going to wing and Hatton shifting to centre. This would have allowed us to rotate the pack a bit more, unless Brookes was injured of course.
We could have done that, maybe Finnigan thought it wasn’t worth the disruption of several players changing positions during the game. Hopefully after the week off we will have Clough, Farnworth, Edge and Spedding available. And be able to field a stronger 17. Or even bring in a new forward or two with some of the VIQI cash. We aren’t going to be competitive going into games with two outside backs on the bench on a regular basis.
For me, if you look at the remaining fixtures, we do not have to play Featherstone or Toulouse, so I think there is a real chance for us to win a good number and pick up a sense of momentum ahead of next season.
I think the rest of this year is about preparing for next season to hit the ground running and to perhaps make some decisions on certain players in terms of retention....
For me, if you look at the remaining fixtures, we do not have to play Featherstone or Toulouse, so I think there is a real chance for us to win a good number and pick up a sense of momentum ahead of next season. I think the rest of this year is about preparing for next season to hit the ground running and to perhaps make some decisions on certain players in terms of retention….
That's about the size of it atm CJ91.
If the club could say that or something like it to give an indication of their aims and intentions it would encourage supporters to think positively. Details of their plans have may have to be concealed but their intentions should be clear.