Apparently we've been paying half his wages this season.

Is that how desperate we were to get rid of him?!!!

Interesting. He's not the most talented prop I've ever seen, but i can't say he did too much wrong whilst at the Bulls, suffered some fairly unlucky injuries and moved on. Why were we paying his wages?

How does that work then?

It's the Peter Ridsdale and Leeds United fiscal model

I really hope this isn't true - Bradford taking such drastic measures is not good for you or the game. I'd much rather see a stronger Bradford pulling in crowds of 15k than see them follow my beloved Leeds Utd path

IF this is true - and obviously until Stuart Duffy denies it, it has to be treated as anecdotal only

- it would sort of suggest that Bulls needed to offload him with some urgency? Whether salary cap or the 25 player rule or for other reasons, who knows? It would also sort of suggest that he was on a decent package, and either did not want to go or his agent could not find him another berth at anything like what he was on? So to get him away, Bulls had to agree to subsidise his salary up to the end of his Bulls contract? IF. all IF.

If...this MIGHT fit in with (or be rumour arising from) the reports that Feather has been offered a contract extension at Cas, but on only "half the salary" which he is angry about? That would fit in with a Bulls subsidy ending, and Cas not being prepared to pay him more than they are already?

And also with the rumour of him maybe going to Oz in some capacity?

Or, alternatively, IF Cas (have seen more anecdotal suggestions posted elsewhere of serious future financial issues - truth or otherwise, who knows?) are trying to counter what Feather has said about his new contract offer?

You pays your money, and you takes your choice! Word of the bloody season on here...IF!

For mine, whilst Feather has had a very good season at Cas this follows a succession of seasons when he never lived up to his promise. General consensus IIRC seemed to be that he rarely showed the drive and ambition and aggression you would have hoped for, and he relied too much on his size and too little on effort and commitment.

What sort of bloody stupid system means that you have to pay a player's wages even if he plays for another team? That's ridiculous.
Give me an example of this happening in the real world.

Easy. Seen it quite regularly, to be honest. As example, happened when I was involved in negotiating a business takeover a few years ago:

* Staff contracted to company A.
* Company B takes over operations of Company A.
* Under TUPE rules, any staff transferring have to be on same terms and conditions with Company B as were with Company A.
* Company B not able to/prepared to pay what company A did.
* Company A agrees to subsidise packages of their staff for a period following their transfer to Company B, as alternative to staff not transferring and Company A having to pay to make them redundant.

(Incidentally, 9 years later the staff referred to in that example were all still with Company B, showing why it was a win-win).

I thought his contract had come to an end when he left for Castleford?

I seemed to recall he had another year left and was "released"? Hence - you would presume - (any) agreement to subsidise his salary for the remainder of his original contractual term.

Was there not some suggestion at the time that something similar happened with Robbie to Hudds? May just have been the rumour mill, of course.

Although it's daft, rather this than paying his full wage and have him wasting a spot in our squad.

If this is true, it suggests the Bulls had two choices.

1) Pay him full wage and have him in the squad this year.

2) Pay half his wage and have him elsewhere.


Obviously if there was an option 3 of paying him nothing and having him move on, they would have taken it, so the option clearly wasn't there.

Of the two available options, the second is by far the better, as, let's be brutually honest, Feather is crap.

How about Cas pay half his wage and we still have him?