We've all been speculating on that particular question. For me, Ridyard is the only out and out 'organiser' of the three and Rangi will have to play most of the time, given what we are presumably paying him. One possible solution - although not permanent - could be to move Brierley to full back, while McNally is out. Your suggestion of Chase to hooker is an interesting thought, as I can't see us using a hooker, a half back and just two forwards on the bench.

Oh it was bad enough last year, half the RL press were saying we were guaranteed SL and the best thing to happen to RL in decades, the other half were saying we were a bunch of cheats, going to implode and all our players were leaving. No doubt this year will be even worse (it's certainly started out that way), still it's a travesty the way The Championship has been ignored in recent years and they say all publicity is good publicity.



The Rangi, Ridy & Ryan issue is a complicated one. The full back position is open with Gregg out but for me he's one of our best players & once he's back he'll take his position again. Though people have always tipped Brierley moving to Full Back he's never really played there while Pownall started his career there & is the usual replacement when McNally is out. Agree with you Alan that Ridy is the only organiser, he's one of those players you can't really see what he does but we always look a much weaker team when he's not on the pitch doing it. Interesting idea about moving Rangi to hooker, but with Higham being one of the few players to stand out in our disastrous Super 8s campaign he'll find competition for that position just as strong as at half back. For me I think the only option is rotation, rotate them all round and see how they all play alongside each other, any of the pairings should be good enough to beat most Championship teams and hopefully Jukes should have a much better idea of what works best once the business end of the season comes round.

rotation is the obvious answer its a long season and unlike last year we don't want to be going into the play offs with player carrying injuries

For me, rotation is a must. That way we would be ready, should any of the three - heaven forbid - get injured. I wish some of our players had been rotated last season - we may just have been a bit fresher come the Qualifiers, and the likes of Ben Reynolds would have slotted in better when it mattered.



Agree with you about McNally. Although I would like his defence to be consistently stronger, he has proved to be our most potent attacking weapon, time and again.

It could work by having a half on the bench and the rest forwards. When Higham needs a rest Rangi moves to Hooker. That then gives a whole new dimension, and very dynamic aspect to the side for that period, and ensures that your most pivotal players are on the field maximum amount of time, but in different roles giving the opposition a dilemma as to how to defend depending on who is where at the time. Rangi has done it before and it has produced some good results. I, obviously don't know the strengths/weaknesses of the squad, but its an idea that could be used and would still leave the fullback position for a specialist player of that position. Only a thought, don't shoot me!!

From an outsider looking in but also a lawyer, I find the idea of an "unenforceable contract clause" an interesting one, and a novel one. A clause is a clause. That doesn't mean Ryan wants to activate it, of course, but a clause is a clause. I'm not aware in law that an "unenforceable contract clause" exists, as otherwise it would not a be a clause and would not be in a contract, because a contract is an agreement based upon specified stipulations. If Ryan stipulated that the clause be in there (perhaps his agent was worried that Rowley would be poached by a Super League club and wanted Ryan to have a chance to follow him) as a condition of him signing the contract, of course its enforceable.



As for, "he's not allowed to leave, and no one is allowed to talk to him" suggests that the contract is very much enforceable.



Good luck for the season anyway. It will certainly be interesting! See you in the Million Pound Game.

Great call

Unfortunately or fortunately for you we wont be playing in the Million Pound Game this year, have a great season and see you in August/September, if not before!

In the interview Derek said he'd consulted a lawyer and the wording of the clause meant it was unenforceable, without knowing the wording or having any legal knowledge I've no real idea what that actually means in the real world. What he also said though was that the RFL have a bank of approved contract clauses and only the ones included can be used, if a club & player want to add one they have to appeal to the RFL to include it in their list, "Player X can become a free agent if coach Y leaves the club." isn't included. So if they could try to wrangle the legal issues of the clause it's still unenforceable under the RFL rules.



"He's not allowed to leave and no one is allowed to talk to him." to me suggest we don't want anyone making illegal approaches to one of our best players the week the season starts, understandable really.

If DB asked Ryan and he didnt want to leave it would be a non issue and not worth contacting a lawyer about. The statement suggests to me he wants out.

Hmm, I see it more as Derek wanting to clarify that clubs are not able to talk to one of our star players on the verge of a crucial season.



Ryan needs to be fully concentrated on playing for Leigh so Derek needs to snuff out the rumours from the press that he is fair game and anyone can try to come in and take him. Hence talking to a Lawyer to help warn people off.

Spot on. Derek negotiates contracts & transfers if there's a clause in a player's contract left over from before he got involved that he wasn't aware of it's only natural he'd want it clarifying so he knows exactly where he stands.