According to SSN this afternoon, Joe Vickery is going to sign on for us based on the two tries yesterday.

Having said that, just exactly how much of this trial has there been :

- Surely it makes sense, if you're going to have someone on trial, not to wait the best part of two and a half months before giving them a game (ie not during the closed season)

- He's Achurch's house mate (Remember the Greg Eastwood affair ?)

- If you read the club's media book sent out with the season tickets, under the blurb for Achurch, it already says he's signed ... How can you put that whilst he's still officially on trial ?

I've no objection about his signing and frankly he looked pretty good yesterday (the second in particular was a real wingers try and needed scoring), if the club think he's good enough then who am I to argue ? He'll bolster up the backline even further, allow Ablett to return to the second row, complement the signing of Moon and on paper, means the team / squad looks stronger than it did last year.

Just why all the cloak & dagger 'trial' smokescreen ?

Maybe the cloak and dagger is so that it is not revealed too soon that Ryan Hall will be playing in the NRL this coming season. Vickery [uDID[/u have on the no.5 shirt yesterday ......

nantwich that's ridiculous BS Jimmy watson wore the no1 ,Briscoe no3 etc etc.
I think it was W55RE who posted elsewhere that Vickery had already been signed up and i'm with you Admiral just announce it and get on with pre-season i thought he went well and certainly looks to have reasonable potential.

I hope the club are being careful here basing the signing on one performance

I did the same with Ben Walker at Valley Parade....

I think the call had been made "before" that loz if WA55RE is right and yesterday only went towards endorsing that call.

True, must have impressed in training & attitude

Hey, I did the same with David Young when he came on half way through us thrashing Barrow 90-0 in 1990. 'Young and optimistic' I think sums it up.

It was pretty obvious from the beginning he was going to sign, so it'll come as no surprise. Maybe the trial period had more to do with how he settled in the country rather than his performances?

Lets be fair here. Yes, he finished 1 try well and had a decent game but he won't be signed on a 1st team contract. He's a depth player with a UK passport who gives us more options. It's not like we're throwing him 100k to score 30 tries a year. He'll get a nice little contract to spend some time in the UK.

@rse-covering, win-win exercise by management - no more, no less.

1. Sign player on contract which includes exit clause if things don't work out, but spin it as trial period where player is actually playing in the hope of earning a contract instead. [uTranslation[/u: Hetherington the cautiously wise!

2. If player settles in well and looks the goods during alleged trial period, spin it as player now offered contract after successful trial period. [uTranslation[/u: Hetherington the wise!

3. If player failed to settle in well and did not look the goods during alleged trial period, spin it as player not offered contract after unsuccessful trial period. [uTranslation[/u: Hetherington the wise!

[url=http://www.tubechop.com/watch/792383You spin me right round baby right round[/url

I thought he did just OK against a poor defence, to be honest he looks slow compared to others but he does have strength

having turned one average Australian centre into a cracking second row, Mack wants to do the same again with a winger.