Which league are pastures new ingateman wrote:over the years we have seen players leave for pastures new I was devastated when Heppy and Hardisty left our own Shenton and Danny Orr left only to return these lads have to earn a crust who can blame them for getting the best terms they can , Mitch is sill on our books and I am sure he will give 100% when he puts a jersey on for us
Mitch Clark?
Re: Mitch Clark?
Re: Mitch Clark?
Unsure on how true this actually is heard today from someone that talks to Mitch regularly that he was not actually offered a contract by cas and was told there wasn't going to be a contract offer. If this is the case all I can think of is that were planning on using the quota spot as I can't see any other reason for us wanting shut of him. Again only what I've been told from someone who I have to reason to doubt
Re: Mitch Clark?
Wells stated he has been offered one in his monthly magazine article.dancas88 wrote:Unsure on how true this actually is heard today from someone that talks to Mitch regularly that he was not actually offered a contract by cas and was told there wasn't going to be a contract offer. If this is the case all I can think of is that were planning on using the quota spot as I can't see any other reason for us wanting shut of him. Again only what I've been told from someone who I have to reason to doubt
Re: Mitch Clark?
Daryl also said he wanted to keep himKB80 wrote:Wells stated he has been offered one in his monthly magazine article.dancas88 wrote:Unsure on how true this actually is heard today from someone that talks to Mitch regularly that he was not actually offered a contract by cas and was told there wasn't going to be a contract offer. If this is the case all I can think of is that were planning on using the quota spot as I can't see any other reason for us wanting shut of him. Again only what I've been told from someone who I have to reason to doubt
Re: Mitch Clark?
Steve Gill also said Daz Clark wouldn't be sold on his watch. I'm not saying it's true but there could be more than meets the eye. However happy to lose a forward if it means being able to further strengthen the backs
Re: Mitch Clark?
Wasn’t Clark “sold” in 2013 before Gill took on the role of CEO???dancas88 wrote:Steve Gill also said Daz Clark wouldn't be sold on his watch. I'm not saying it's true but there could be more than meets the eye. However happy to lose a forward if it means being able to further strengthen the backs
Re: Mitch Clark?
Not truedancas88 wrote:Unsure on how true this actually is heard today from someone that talks to Mitch regularly that he was not actually offered a contract by cas and was told there wasn't going to be a contract offer. If this is the case all I can think of is that were planning on using the quota spot as I can't see any other reason for us wanting shut of him. Again only what I've been told from someone who I have to reason to doubt
Re: Mitch Clark?
Weather he was or wasn't he left at the end of 2014 not too long after it was denied he was leaving. Either way I don't mind Clark leaving if we have other plans for the quota spot to be used that will improve the backsFumper27 wrote:Wasn’t Clark “sold” in 2013 before Gill took on the role of CEO???dancas88 wrote:Steve Gill also said Daz Clark wouldn't be sold on his watch. I'm not saying it's true but there could be more than meets the eye. However happy to lose a forward if it means being able to further strengthen the backs
Re: Mitch Clark?
dancas88 wrote:Unsure on how true this actually is heard today from someone that talks to Mitch regularly that he was not actually offered a contract by cas and was told there wasn't going to be a contract offer. If this is the case all I can think of is that were planning on using the quota spot as I can't see any other reason for us wanting shut of him. Again only what I've been told from someone who I have to reason to doubt
Mitch Clark isn’t quota I believe he was born in Pontefract and has dual nationality so doesn’t count on the quota.
-
- Championship Player
- Posts: 5272
- Joined: 11 Jul 2006, 16:17
- Contact:
Re: Mitch Clark?
Place of birth is irrelevant to the non-fed quota. As is citizenship.sirocco7 wrote:dancas88 wrote:Unsure on how true this actually is heard today from someone that talks to Mitch regularly that he was not actually offered a contract by cas and was told there wasn't going to be a contract offer. If this is the case all I can think of is that were planning on using the quota spot as I can't see any other reason for us wanting shut of him. Again only what I've been told from someone who I have to reason to doubt
Mitch Clark isn’t quota I believe he was born in Pontefract and has dual nationality so doesn’t count on the quota.
He is not federation trained so is one of our seven allowed non-fed players.
Re: Mitch Clark?
Doesn’t matter. He grew up in and played all his junior rugby in Australia so is a non fed trained player. Our seven are currently:sirocco7 wrote:dancas88 wrote:Unsure on how true this actually is heard today from someone that talks to Mitch regularly that he was not actually offered a contract by cas and was told there wasn't going to be a contract offer. If this is the case all I can think of is that were planning on using the quota spot as I can't see any other reason for us wanting shut of him. Again only what I've been told from someone who I have to reason to doubt
Mitch Clark isn’t quota I believe he was born in Pontefract and has dual nationality so doesn’t count on the quota.
Mata’utia
Blair
Rankin
Millington
Moors
JSL
Clark
-
- League One Player
- Posts: 3612
- Joined: 10 Jan 2018, 15:27
- Contact:
Re: Mitch Clark?
Big fan of Mitch, but IMO if you're going to use a quote spot these days, they can't be used for a player who is an impact sub. They have to be someone who goes straight in to the starting 13.
We've never been a club that properly executes the quote spot. Wasn't long ago we used up 3 on wingers.
We've never been a club that properly executes the quote spot. Wasn't long ago we used up 3 on wingers.
Re: Mitch Clark?
That is quite true, he is a non-fed trained player and therefore counts on quota despite being born in Pontefract which personally I find ridiculous.nottinghamtiger wrote:Place of birth is irrelevant to the non-fed quota. As is citizenship.sirocco7 wrote:dancas88 wrote:Unsure on how true this actually is heard today from someone that talks to Mitch regularly that he was not actually offered a contract by cas and was told there wasn't going to be a contract offer. If this is the case all I can think of is that were planning on using the quota spot as I can't see any other reason for us wanting shut of him. Again only what I've been told from someone who I have to reason to doubt
Mitch Clark isn’t quota I believe he was born in Pontefract and has dual nationality so doesn’t count on the quota.
He is not federation trained so is one of our seven allowed non-fed players.
However, what is the betting on there being a change to the rules if/when he becomes a Wigan player?
-
- League One Player
- Posts: 3612
- Joined: 10 Jan 2018, 15:27
- Contact:
Re: Mitch Clark?
Apparently Wigan have offered Mitch 20k more a year than what he's on with us.
-
- Academy Player
- Posts: 1812
- Joined: 05 Jul 2006, 23:02
- Location: WAKEFIELD
- Contact:
Re: Mitch Clark?
Maybe so but I would have expected Cas to offer him around the same now he as established himself in the 17, on his current contract Mitch came to us as a project player from the championship and wouldn't have been on much.heritage1926 wrote:Apparently Wigan have offered Mitch 20k more a year than what he's on with us.
Re: Mitch Clark?
Disagree there. When we’ve a fully fit squad, Clark is not in the 17 for me.Sharlotiger wrote:now he as established himself in the 17.heritage1926 wrote:Apparently Wigan have offered Mitch 20k more a year than what he's on with us.
Re: Mitch Clark?
Agree with that, Clark not in 17 when everyone fit!Fumper27 wrote:Disagree there. When we’ve a fully fit squad, Clark is not in the 17 for me.Sharlotiger wrote:now he as established himself in the 17.heritage1926 wrote:Apparently Wigan have offered Mitch 20k more a year than what he's on with us.
Danny Boy
-
Verified
- Grand Final Winner
- Posts: 15893
- Joined: 31 Jan 2009, 03:55
- Contact:
Re: Mitch Clark?
Doesn't mean to say we haven't offered the same or close to it and he's snubbed it.heritage1926 wrote:Apparently Wigan have offered Mitch 20k more a year than what he's on with us.
Either way, he doesn't want to stay at Cas for whatever reason IF it's true so best of luck to him. Hope it's not a bad decision. We move on, have an overseas spot free and can look to use it elsewhere in the team.
In the spirit of the final Blackadder episode - Goooodbyeee!
-
- League One Player
- Posts: 2581
- Joined: 12 Mar 2012, 17:24
- Contact:
Re: Mitch Clark?
Yep, and Powell obviously agrees because when Cas did have numbers Clark was in the Championship.Danny Boy wrote:Agree with that, Clark not in 17 when everyone fit!Fumper27 wrote:Disagree there. When we’ve a fully fit squad, Clark is not in the 17 for me.Sharlotiger wrote:now he as established himself in the 17.heritage1926 wrote:Apparently Wigan have offered Mitch 20k more a year than what he's on with us.
Re: Mitch Clark?
Yep and Millington, Moors and Cook are all 32 so wont be here much longerTheSheriff wrote:Yep, and Powell obviously agrees because when Cas did have numbers Clark was in the Championship.Danny Boy wrote:Agree with that, Clark not in 17 when everyone fit!Fumper27 wrote:Disagree there. When we’ve a fully fit squad, Clark is not in the 17 for me.Sharlotiger wrote:now he as established himself in the 17.heritage1926 wrote:Apparently Wigan have offered Mitch 20k more a year than what he's on with us.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 137 guests