Page 1 of 2
Mitch clark
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2021 4:40 pm
by Firestarter
As ive totally no idea what the individual players get paid and how there wages differ.I was wondering if we could release mitch and replace him.Ide guess hes on more than the likes of shorrocks,havard, smithies, bullock etc.Seems daft keeping him as its obvious hes not gonna be picked unless we are down to the bare bones.It also seems silly when we are so short in the backs.I thought he would get a shot on friday but obviously hes gonna be way down the pecking order again this season.Ive never been one to get on the hankinson bandwagon but he was a pretty steady player who probably didnt get a fair crack at the first team( possibly same as mitch).Maybe a loan swap would keep both parties happy for a few weeks
Re: Mitch clark
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2021 9:13 pm
by Blackpool_Pie
Do you think it would be easy to offload someone on a high wage who isnt playing? Who wants to take those wages on?
Re: Mitch clark
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2021 9:34 pm
by Firestarter
Blackpool_Pie wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 9:13 pm
Do you think it would be easy to offload someone on a high wage who isnt playing? Who wants to take those wages on?
Probably not if he is on a big wage
Re: Mitch clark
Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:35 pm
by Barney841
Never understood this signing. Didn’t really make the starting 17 last season, doesn’t look like he will get a look in this season. Why keep him or sign him in the first place?
Re: Mitch clark
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 1:00 am
by Charriots Offiah
Barney841 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:35 pm
Never understood this signing. Didn’t really make the starting 17 last season, doesn’t look like he will get a look in this season. Why keep him or sign him in the first place?
Ask Rads.
Re: Mitch clark
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 7:12 am
by nathan_rugby
Barney841 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:35 pm
Never understood this signing. Didn’t really make the starting 17 last season, doesn’t look like he will get a look in this season. Why keep him or sign him in the first place?
Why keep him? Maybe the fact he’s got a contract?
You can’t just get rid of players who are contracted.
Re: Mitch clark
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 9:32 am
by Levrier
There were rumours about him leaving mid off season but nothing came of them. Thank goodness bosses cannot just rip up contracts. In his one outing this year he did seem up for it though so he is worth a shot. He always looks willing when he comes onto the pitch though then does not really add much.
Re: Mitch clark
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 10:25 am
by CheshireWarrior
I put him in the same category as Navarette.......(not inexperienced, neither too old or young, just too many options ahead of him).
Bit like Hankinson, hard to be too critical either way IMO.
Re: Mitch clark
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 11:19 am
by southportcdm
The best result for us would be for MItch to take any chance that he gets and prove us all wrong. I think that he's facing the problem that Lammy (and many of us?) has probably decided he's not up to it and he'll only get a chance now if we have lots of injuries. I can't accept that Clubby offers more at this stage of his career so if MItch doesn't get a game we've effectively got two experienced props not 'earning their keep'. Not a good situation in a salary capped sport.
Re: Mitch clark
Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2021 12:51 pm
by Barney841
nathan_rugby wrote: ↑Mon Mar 29, 2021 7:12 am
Barney841 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:35 pm
Never understood this signing. Didn’t really make the starting 17 last season, doesn’t look like he will get a look in this season. Why keep him or sign him in the first place?
Why keep him? Maybe the fact he’s got a contract?
You can’t just get rid of players who are contracted.
Have you always been a prat?
Obviously I meant try and get rid of him the appropriate way