You're talking about holding clubs to a contract. Shack isn't in the first 17 and Poore isn't playing like a 350k player. If what they are rumoured to want is true then they would be saving Parra lot of money and enabling them to buy someone they want like Jennings.
If this happens it would be a move that benefits all parties. If it's true that Poore would take a paycut to come to us then that is exactly the sort of player I want. Someone not just chasing the money.
How is this "logical"?
Justin Poore has 6 months remaining on his 350k contract. At the most the Rabbitohs might be able to pay about 50k of this contract.
You're suggesting that either;
* Justin Poore is willing to give up 300k (probably about 150k-200k now as he's already played a third of the season) just to play for the Rabbitohs.
OR
* Parramatta are willing to let go one of their 4 man prop rotation who plays every week and subsidise 300k of his contract so he can go and play for a rival team.
Neither seem logical or rational to me.
Then there's your assertion that releasing Justin Poore from the final 6 months of his contract would help the Eels sign Michael Jennings for 2013. Parra are under no obligation to re-sign or continue to pay Poore his salary beyond this year so again I fail to see how this assertion is logical?