Those three would suffice GH . Hampshire is not wanted by Wigan so would make a good replacement for Sinfield; Fages has of course resigned and looks a useful addition to the squad ...and Lunt right now if we can for obvious reasons. There is the additional benefit he is already familiar with the Leeds set up..... Or what about re-signing Hood too from the den of wailing and gnashing of teeth that is Salford?

It is already worrying me that McDermott has already pretty much confirmed Burrow will start as hooker against Wigan (R.Ward and Lilley mere 'back up'). Dreading the thought of the grinning ape man basking in his self annointed superiority as Wigan yet again beat the 'all conquering' Leeds.

Does Hampshire want to leave Pie eaters and has Lunt singed with Kr?

Hampshire still hasn't shown he can do it consistently at SL level, he'd be a massive risk to throw into the side as one of your pivots.

Fages has looked no more than decent IMO at Salford, don't get the massive fuss people are making over him.

Lunt is a meh. We all know what he can and can't do, but on balance I'd much rather have Danny Houghton.

From what I've heard / seen Hampshire hasn't had the best of opportunities or a decent run in the side.

Fages hype is down to his age and utility value ,in a top side I think he would be a good acquisition.

Lunt ,I doubt anyone would think he's a top draw signing..however as I said before if it's him or nothing I'd sign him on a two years deal so we have time find a good replacement/ give R Ward experience .Also at 2 years he would be leaving at the same time as Burrow, giving us plenty cap for a good hooker

Hampshire...and he is highly rated by the Wigan faithful

Fages.....exactly

Lunt.... you're of course assuming Lunt would be happy with a 2 year contract?!

Hampshire signed a 5 year contract at Wigan last year. Plus, he's not good enough for Leeds.
Fages? No need.
Lunt? Why go back there?

Hampshire....Really? Biased maybe?
Fages.....Depends on the price surely?
Lunt...because he was/is a decent SL hooker who knows the Leeds set up and we know would 'fit' the very important team ethos that happily continues to prevail.

Lunt clearly isn't wanted at Hudds. He might be valued at hKR but a two year deal at Leeds will see him to 30 years old and likely a trophy or two and if he has a good few seasons he might add to his price tag for a last big deal, like Aiton.

He's played about 50% of the games so far this year, which I think is about right for a player in his first full year out of the U19's.

....but in the 'wrong' position ....and then been scapegoated !! (only going by your own board's contributers)

Yeah I seem to recall comments about him being played at 1 when he's a 6 / blah blah.

As for age I think once they are over 18 if they are good enough,they are old enough..for backs at least. I know there will be different circumstances etc with each case but I don't think age being a reason for lack of games is a strong one.

Don't understand your reply about Hampshire... I know his Dad (Richard- scouts for Wigan on a part time basis). Ryan thinks he's a 6, Wane thinks he's a utility player. He'll be used for cover for Tomkins and Williams. We already have a utility player (Sutcliffe).

Fages looks good in a rubbish team. The new Danny Orr?

We don't need to go back to Lunt. Are you part of the brigade who wanted Harris and Ellis to come back just because they used to be good players for us?

What happened to all the Lunt love? People were practically staining their trousers over him when he was at Leeds. Then followed much abuse when we went for aiton instead. Why is he now not good enough? He showed last time he can do it. Also, most people thought aiton was a meh signing at the time but the coaches have got the best out of him and then some.

For Wane read Mac on this board