Hanbury
-
- New member
- Posts: 42
- Joined: 21 Nov 2016, 23:37
- Contact:
Hanbury
Looks like it was in a rugby newspaper.. what do we think? I’d personally be ok with him, nice short term replacement until Zak comes back
- mart0042
- Championship Player
- Posts: 6355
- Joined: 24 May 2007, 15:06
- Location: behind the table in the lab deep under Racoon City.....
- Contact:
Re: Hanbury
A good player and has pace. Like Luke Dorn in many ways
Re: Hanbury
Would be happy with him to be honest. Would give us 2 years until Zak comes back/Turner comes through/sign someone else.
-
- Championship Player
- Posts: 5272
- Joined: 11 Jul 2006, 16:17
- Contact:
Re: Hanbury
He'd be a good fit for the team.
However, he is on the non-fed quota.
Unless we lose one of Moors, Millington, Roberts, Hitchcox, JSL, Lo or Clark then we can't sign him.
However, he is on the non-fed quota.
Unless we lose one of Moors, Millington, Roberts, Hitchcox, JSL, Lo or Clark then we can't sign him.
- mart0042
- Championship Player
- Posts: 6355
- Joined: 24 May 2007, 15:06
- Location: behind the table in the lab deep under Racoon City.....
- Contact:
Re: Hanbury
The question is really Lo or hitchcox. Loan one or our release one. I haven't seen enough of lo to know which one but I do know jy has rarely played in 2 years, either by injury it not being picked.nottinghamtiger wrote:He'd be a good fit for the team.
However, he is on the non-fed quota.
Unless we lose one of Moors, Millington, Roberts, Hitchcox, JSL, Lo or Clark then we can't sign him.
Lo looks like carney clone and if he happy to have him add the alternative wing option.
Re: Hanbury
Unless Hanbury would remain exempt.
He got an exemption following the demise of Crusaders. Was this just for his first contract afterwards (Widnes) or does it continue for his whole career? Not sure of the answer, just posing the question.
He got an exemption following the demise of Crusaders. Was this just for his first contract afterwards (Widnes) or does it continue for his whole career? Not sure of the answer, just posing the question.
- mart0042
- Championship Player
- Posts: 6355
- Joined: 24 May 2007, 15:06
- Location: behind the table in the lab deep under Racoon City.....
- Contact:
Re: Hanbury
I'm not sure. I would expect it to last until the end of his playing contract with crusaders. I would have thought it would have been up by now.
-
Verified
- Moderator
- Posts: 885
- Joined: 21 Dec 2016, 20:09
- Contact:
Re: Hanbury
The crusaders exemptions were only for first contract following their non-application for SL. So he would count on the quota.
Re: Hanbury
No it wasn't to do with his contract at Crusaders. It was granted to ex-Crusaders players after they had withdrawn from the league in order that they could find new clubs. The question is whether it was just for their first contract after Crusaders (In Hanbury's case, Widnes) or whether it continues through their playing career.
-
- Championship Player
- Posts: 5272
- Joined: 11 Jul 2006, 16:17
- Contact:
Re: Hanbury
First contract only unfortunately.Tiger53 wrote:No it wasn't to do with his contract at Crusaders. It was granted to ex-Crusaders players after they had withdrawn from the league in order that they could find new clubs. The question is whether it was just for their first contract after Crusaders (In Hanbury's case, Widnes) or whether it continues through their playing career.
Sammut was exempt at Bradford but counted when he moved to Wakefield.
-
Verified
- Moderator
- Posts: 885
- Joined: 21 Dec 2016, 20:09
- Contact:
Re: Hanbury
Correct nottingham.
Also Hanbury signed a contract extension up to 2019 so there would be a transfer fee to pay. Can't see Betts letting one of his few decent players go for nothing !
Also Hanbury signed a contract extension up to 2019 so there would be a transfer fee to pay. Can't see Betts letting one of his few decent players go for nothing !
Re: Hanbury
Not saying anyone is wrong about the non fed trained rules but if it only counts for your first contract this wouldn't then fit with Jake Webster although I realise he got his exemption for different reasons.
Jake is exempt because he was playing in England before the non fed rule was introduced. However, he was then at Hull KR so, if the rule was consistent, when he moved to Cas his exemption would have ceased but he's still exempt. Not saying anyone is wrong, just are you absolutely sure?
Just think there is an awful lot of confusion amongst most fans about who is exempt and who isn't. It about time that th RFL published a full list on their website (which is regularly updated) of all exempt players by club.
Jake is exempt because he was playing in England before the non fed rule was introduced. However, he was then at Hull KR so, if the rule was consistent, when he moved to Cas his exemption would have ceased but he's still exempt. Not saying anyone is wrong, just are you absolutely sure?
Just think there is an awful lot of confusion amongst most fans about who is exempt and who isn't. It about time that th RFL published a full list on their website (which is regularly updated) of all exempt players by club.
-
- League One Player
- Posts: 2191
- Joined: 08 Jul 2008, 00:20
- Location: On the brink
- Contact:
Re: Hanbury
Don't believe it will happen but would be delighted short term for a year or 2.
-
- New member
- Posts: 40
- Joined: 05 Oct 2017, 21:06
- Contact:
Re: Hanbury
Would be a great signing imo with the current circumstances, him and a couple of big men and we are shaping up well for next season!
-
- Championship Player
- Posts: 5272
- Joined: 11 Jul 2006, 16:17
- Contact:
Re: Hanbury
It's not confusing at all.Tiger53 wrote:Not saying anyone is wrong about the non fed trained rules but if it only counts for your first contract this wouldn't then fit with Jake Webster although I realise he got his exemption for different reasons.
Jake is exempt because he was playing in England before the non fed rule was introduced. However, he was then at Hull KR so, if the rule was consistent, when he moved to Cas his exemption would have ceased but he's still exempt. Not saying anyone is wrong, just are you absolutely sure?
Just think there is an awful lot of confusion amongst most fans about who is exempt and who isn't. It about time that th RFL published a full list on their website (which is regularly updated) of all exempt players by club.
Players who were playing in SL before the non-fed rules came into force are exempt forever.
Players who were left high and dry by Crusaders were exempt for the duration of their first contract.
Simples.
I do agree that there should be a published list of exemptions though.
Re: Hanbury
Do you know if players are still exempt if they have been here 6 years?nottinghamtiger wrote:It's not confusing at all.Tiger53 wrote:Not saying anyone is wrong about the non fed trained rules but if it only counts for your first contract this wouldn't then fit with Jake Webster although I realise he got his exemption for different reasons.
Jake is exempt because he was playing in England before the non fed rule was introduced. However, he was then at Hull KR so, if the rule was consistent, when he moved to Cas his exemption would have ceased but he's still exempt. Not saying anyone is wrong, just are you absolutely sure?
Just think there is an awful lot of confusion amongst most fans about who is exempt and who isn't. It about time that th RFL published a full list on their website (which is regularly updated) of all exempt players by club.
Players who were playing in SL before the non-fed rules came into force are exempt forever.
Players who were left high and dry by Crusaders were exempt for the duration of their first contract.
Simples.
I do agree that there should be a published list of exemptions though.
-
- Championship Player
- Posts: 5272
- Joined: 11 Jul 2006, 16:17
- Contact:
Re: Hanbury
Only if they were playing in SL (or the other lower leagues) before the non-fed rule was introduced (2008 I think).PSTiger wrote:Do you know if players are still exempt if they have been here 6 years?nottinghamtiger wrote:It's not confusing at all.Tiger53 wrote:Not saying anyone is wrong about the non fed trained rules but if it only counts for your first contract this wouldn't then fit with Jake Webster although I realise he got his exemption for different reasons.
Jake is exempt because he was playing in England before the non fed rule was introduced. However, he was then at Hull KR so, if the rule was consistent, when he moved to Cas his exemption would have ceased but he's still exempt. Not saying anyone is wrong, just are you absolutely sure?
Just think there is an awful lot of confusion amongst most fans about who is exempt and who isn't. It about time that th RFL published a full list on their website (which is regularly updated) of all exempt players by club.
Players who were playing in SL before the non-fed rules came into force are exempt forever.
Players who were left high and dry by Crusaders were exempt for the duration of their first contract.
Simples.
I do agree that there should be a published list of exemptions though.
Re: Hanbury
It says player playing at the same club for 6yearsare exempt from quota but I don’t know if it means both quotas. Millington is in his 7 year with us so might be.nottinghamtiger wrote:Only if they were playing in SL (or the other lower leagues) before the non-fed rule was introduced (2008 I think).PSTiger wrote:Do you know if players are still exempt if they have been here 6 years?nottinghamtiger wrote:It's not confusing at all.Tiger53 wrote:Not saying anyone is wrong about the non fed trained rules but if it only counts for your first contract this wouldn't then fit with Jake Webster although I realise he got his exemption for different reasons.
Jake is exempt because he was playing in England before the non fed rule was introduced. However, he was then at Hull KR so, if the rule was consistent, when he moved to Cas his exemption would have ceased but he's still exempt. Not saying anyone is wrong, just are you absolutely sure?
Just think there is an awful lot of confusion amongst most fans about who is exempt and who isn't. It about time that th RFL published a full list on their website (which is regularly updated) of all exempt players by club.
Players who were playing in SL before the non-fed rules came into force are exempt forever.
Players who were left high and dry by Crusaders were exempt for the duration of their first contract.
Simples.
I do agree that there should be a published list of exemptions though.
-
- Championship Player
- Posts: 5272
- Joined: 11 Jul 2006, 16:17
- Contact:
Re: Hanbury
Where does it say this?TT Tiger wrote:It says player playing at the same club for 6yearsare exempt from quota but I don’t know if it means both quotas. Millington is in his 7 year with us so might be.nottinghamtiger wrote:Only if they were playing in SL (or the other lower leagues) before the non-fed rule was introduced (2008 I think).PSTiger wrote:Do you know if players are still exempt if they have been here 6 years?nottinghamtiger wrote:It's not confusing at all.Tiger53 wrote:Not saying anyone is wrong about the non fed trained rules but if it only counts for your first contract this wouldn't then fit with Jake Webster although I realise he got his exemption for different reasons.
Jake is exempt because he was playing in England before the non fed rule was introduced. However, he was then at Hull KR so, if the rule was consistent, when he moved to Cas his exemption would have ceased but he's still exempt. Not saying anyone is wrong, just are you absolutely sure?
Just think there is an awful lot of confusion amongst most fans about who is exempt and who isn't. It about time that th RFL published a full list on their website (which is regularly updated) of all exempt players by club.
Players who were playing in SL before the non-fed rules came into force are exempt forever.
Players who were left high and dry by Crusaders were exempt for the duration of their first contract.
Simples.
I do agree that there should be a published list of exemptions though.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests