Quote Barbed Wire="Barbed Wire"We literally outbid them on both. And the Nicholson one is a good example actually, if we take Bryne and Hill has a clear path in the first team in the same way Nsemba has in the absence of Nicholson, they win. They get more, for less. And their rival pay more, for less. And as much as I like Nicholson, Nsemba was more effective last year.

In a salary cap sport (for those in the mix, although I think the salary cap deserves its own discussion), you need to get return on the money you pay, we need to find something to close the gap and overpaying for players isn’t the way.

I’m not being negative about it, I just think we need to get to the bottom of why he is available. If we’re rolling together the Crowther and Wood money and think Byrne will do the job of both, great. Completely understand that. But if we’re using 70-80% or more of Vaughan money on Byrne, there’s not enough money remaining to add enough to see that our pack doesn’t regress. Because you know, you just KNOW that Wigan have another Byrne, and another Hill and a Smithies, a Partington etc etc etc waiting in the wings being paid peanuts to do the same or better job. It’s up to us to make him deliver on the investment, or the gap opens wider. Not just that, but it blocks the path of Thomas, Green, Whitehead… Prudent recruitment would be to wait until May time and challenge those kids to kick the door down and make the Byrne deal seem unnecessary, but the November 1st negotiation date makes that difficult, as you’d be beaten to the signature.'"

Barbed WireBarbedWire2:

The thing with Vaughan is the situation with his wife. I believe she put her career on hold to come here, signed up for 2 years and extended for another. If she wants to go home, and who could hold that against her, does Vaughan actually see out a two year deal. We could give him the contract, and spend that money on the balance sheet for 2027 but he bail out either in 27, or even in the 26/27 off season, leaving us without a prop and going to the leftover section for a starting prop at short notice. 


The alternative is that we give him a year, with a planned review mid way through 2026 to see how it’s playing out both on form and on the family situation. Then commit to funding another year or progress other options for 2027 rather than be at the back of the queue and over pay in desperation.


I think it’s a sensible move from the club, and a long as both parties are open and honest, acting in good faith, there is no reason why it can’t work for both. Such as a ‘mutual option’ clause for 27 which needs to be triggered by May for example. 

Barbed WireSmiffy27:



We are discussing the possible signing a front line prop, Vaughan, aged 35 next April on a two year deal. Players fade at very different rates. One year extensions safest for us but you can't always get what you want. I am sure there are some examples of props at that age getting two year deals but there are going to be so many more who won't.

Barbed Wirerubber duckie:

What I heard is Vaughan’s family are to return to Australia at the end of this season whatever Vaughan’s next career move is.
Vaughan had a year at Wire tabled, York then offered 2. 
Vaughany said to say he’d like to do a spell in the championship!? Which was a weird thing to say, then the York interest came out!


I’ve been very open with my thoughts on Vaughan. When he wants it, he is the best prop in SL. 
I can count all those times on one hand. His poor discipline has cost us more games than his good performances has won us. 


He can go for me, far more consistent options in the NRL and with more years than a 35 year old. 


Anyways, we’re talking to a prop at Canberra Raiders already. 
From what I’m hearing, Vaughany is as good as gone to York. 


Ps, this site iOS mobile stability still sucks and that’s why I seldom post anymore.