Hanbury

Players in ... Players out. Got a rumour? Post it in here.
Binman7000
New member
Posts: 42
Joined: 21 Nov 2016, 23:37
Contact:

Hanbury

Post by Binman7000 » 30 Oct 2017, 10:50

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

User avatar
mart0042
Championship Player
Championship Player
Posts: 6355
Joined: 24 May 2007, 15:06
Location: behind the table in the lab deep under Racoon City.....
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by mart0042 » 30 Oct 2017, 11:01

A good player and has pace. Like Luke Dorn in many ways

PSTiger
Academy Player
Academy Player
Posts: 204
Joined: 24 May 2015, 12:00
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by PSTiger » 30 Oct 2017, 11:11

Would be happy with him to be honest. Would give us 2 years until Zak comes back/Turner comes through/sign someone else.

nottinghamtiger
Championship Player
Championship Player
Posts: 5272
Joined: 11 Jul 2006, 16:17
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by nottinghamtiger » 30 Oct 2017, 11:15

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.

User avatar
mart0042
Championship Player
Championship Player
Posts: 6355
Joined: 24 May 2007, 15:06
Location: behind the table in the lab deep under Racoon City.....
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by mart0042 » 30 Oct 2017, 11:26

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.
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.

Lo looks like carney clone and if he happy to have him add the alternative wing option.

Tiger53
Academy Player
Academy Player
Posts: 311
Joined: 09 Nov 2016, 15:41
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by Tiger53 » 30 Oct 2017, 11:41

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.

User avatar
mart0042
Championship Player
Championship Player
Posts: 6355
Joined: 24 May 2007, 15:06
Location: behind the table in the lab deep under Racoon City.....
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by mart0042 » 30 Oct 2017, 12:50

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.

Spanishtiger
Verified
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 885
Joined: 21 Dec 2016, 20:09
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by Spanishtiger » 30 Oct 2017, 12:57

The crusaders exemptions were only for first contract following their non-application for SL. So he would count on the quota.

Tiger53
Academy Player
Academy Player
Posts: 311
Joined: 09 Nov 2016, 15:41
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by Tiger53 » 30 Oct 2017, 13:00

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.

nottinghamtiger
Championship Player
Championship Player
Posts: 5272
Joined: 11 Jul 2006, 16:17
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by nottinghamtiger » 30 Oct 2017, 13:49

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.
First contract only unfortunately.
Sammut was exempt at Bradford but counted when he moved to Wakefield.

Spanishtiger
Verified
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 885
Joined: 21 Dec 2016, 20:09
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by Spanishtiger » 30 Oct 2017, 16:22

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 !

User avatar
jackknife
Verified
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 5096
Joined: 07 Jul 2011, 17:28
Location: york
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by jackknife » 30 Oct 2017, 16:43

Swap him for hitchcox
CLASSY CAS FOREVER

Tiger53
Academy Player
Academy Player
Posts: 311
Joined: 09 Nov 2016, 15:41
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by Tiger53 » 30 Oct 2017, 16:55

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.

RonnieGibbs'forearm
League One Player
League One Player
Posts: 2191
Joined: 08 Jul 2008, 00:20
Location: On the brink
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by RonnieGibbs'forearm » 30 Oct 2017, 17:49

Don't believe it will happen but would be delighted short term for a year or 2.
Image

Normyford2
New member
Posts: 40
Joined: 05 Oct 2017, 21:06
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by Normyford2 » 30 Oct 2017, 19:51

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!

nottinghamtiger
Championship Player
Championship Player
Posts: 5272
Joined: 11 Jul 2006, 16:17
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by nottinghamtiger » 30 Oct 2017, 19:52

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.
It's not confusing at all.
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.

PSTiger
Academy Player
Academy Player
Posts: 204
Joined: 24 May 2015, 12:00
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by PSTiger » 30 Oct 2017, 20:30

nottinghamtiger wrote:
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.
It's not confusing at all.
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.
Do you know if players are still exempt if they have been here 6 years?

nottinghamtiger
Championship Player
Championship Player
Posts: 5272
Joined: 11 Jul 2006, 16:17
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by nottinghamtiger » 30 Oct 2017, 20:32

PSTiger wrote:
nottinghamtiger wrote:
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.
It's not confusing at all.
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.
Do you know if players are still exempt if they have been here 6 years?
Only if they were playing in SL (or the other lower leagues) before the non-fed rule was introduced (2008 I think).

TT Tiger
League One Player
League One Player
Posts: 2308
Joined: 23 Jan 2014, 15:02
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by TT Tiger » 30 Oct 2017, 21:42

nottinghamtiger wrote:
PSTiger wrote:
nottinghamtiger wrote:
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.
It's not confusing at all.
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.
Do you know if players are still exempt if they have been here 6 years?
Only if they were playing in SL (or the other lower leagues) before the non-fed rule was introduced (2008 I think).
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
Championship Player
Championship Player
Posts: 5272
Joined: 11 Jul 2006, 16:17
Contact:

Re: Hanbury

Post by nottinghamtiger » 30 Oct 2017, 21:44

TT Tiger wrote:
nottinghamtiger wrote:
PSTiger wrote:
nottinghamtiger wrote:
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.
It's not confusing at all.
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.
Do you know if players are still exempt if they have been here 6 years?
Only if they were playing in SL (or the other lower leagues) before the non-fed rule was introduced (2008 I think).
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.
Where does it say this?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 15 guests