Here here.

100k for Burns plus 100k for Hodgson doesn't add up to 240k pal.

Plus £40k for Hall smart

So ... Whats the hold up?

Yo momma so fat she got stuck going through the door. Now everyone has to wait.









Sorry.

Probably personal terms.

I will be happy if saints sign burns, but the disappointing thing is that Saints have been scouring the globe for years for a decent hb without success (apart from Walsh) yet HKR can unearth these players and then sell them on for a profit. Is our scouting system missing these players? Will we shell out £100k and then see HKR sign another number 6 effectively for free?

I think our hb recruitment has been years behing where it should be due to the unforseeable situations that happened with Eastmond, Wheeler, Gaskell and even to a degree Lomax. Its reasonable that we expected at least 1 of those to be our regular hb, but it just didnt happen for a variety of reasons.
It's still my (and i know its not a popular option) opinion that we should have kept Matty Smith. No he's not an out and out superstar, but he's extremely consistant, consumate pro and doesn't get injured.

Even now, we'd expect one of Richardson, Hewitt and Charnock to break through and make a grab for a hb shirt.

I suppose this is the downside of having a successful academy ... If we had recruited someone in thered be those complaining we never gave the likes of Wheeler and Gaskell a chance. Its a delicate balance...

No one in there right mind would have kept smith over Eastmond.
However, we should have kept him over Scott Moore, who was a real waste of space. Smith would have been a good interchange hooker/squad half back.

I got the chance to see McManus in Caernarfon 2 years back he was still "miffed" that his 5 year plan of having the Eastmond/Wheeler partnership failed and was also a bit dissapointed in how Moore unfolded, he didn,t say all that much about Smith though.
The club wanted to promote within whilst the the new stadium project was ongoing, it ended up as a recruitment distraction.

I liked Eastmonds spark but never really saw him as an organiser. More a maverick that could take on the line. Having said that I would not have kept Smith either. But I was a big fan of Gaskell. On the field he would try stuff and his kicking game was decent. But it seemed off the field issues got in the way. What I will never understand is the decisons taken around getting rid of our youth products.

We let Smith (and Long) go before getting Eastmond to sign a very long deal?
We brought a utility fullback to replace Eastmond?
We let Gaskell go mid-season with no replacement brought in, instead we brought in an average hooker?
Can't argue with Lomax or Wheeler. We tried them and adjusted for them with Lomax we found a place for him, but Wheeler is just crocked. He probably had the talent, but being out so long has made him rusty and average halves are ahead of him because he's not developed due to his injuries.

Same as anyone with talent, if they don't or can't use it, it does not stay uneffected.

To me the contract mistake with Eastmond was key, his replacement error and letting Gaskell go without replacing.

If any one of those had not happened the half back issues would not have been half as bad.

I don't think it was a mistake. He wanted away for a bigger and brighter stage and there wasn't much we could do about it. That's probably why McManus was miffed.

I'm talking about the first 1st team contract not the 2nd one. The first one if I remember correctly we only got him to sign after telling Smith to go to Salford and Long to go to Hull. If we had not told them both to go, either Eastmond signs a 3 or 4 year deal, or we keep Smith on the books as Eastmond was obviously not interested at that point for any more than 2 more years in RL.

I agree with this. If we thought Eastmond really was the future, we should have got him on a 5yr deal. Yes theres some risk involved, but it does seem everyone at the club had our future pinned on him