I'm fairly pleased we've kept him, although the length of deal is a concern I expect he will be one of a few Saints players that will benefit more from having ten interchanges instead of 12 next year as he can play long minutes at high intensity.

I wouldn't put loyal and Wilkin in the same sentence to be honest, but that's another story.

The deal first. A great deal for a quality player. Not many second rowers who can have the odd cracking game as a half back. This gives us a good portion of the pack going forwards and even if we do not keep sia we have two good second rowers in flanaghan and wilkin signed up long term.

Union wise I think there is not as much scope for conversion as people think. I would say 28 is getting towards the wrong end of the specturm. Also as a second rower it would not be a straight forward conversion. That was why I was quite surprised when theysigned joel as he was not really a quality centre. He was only filling in there for wigan.

I think forward wise the window is narrower for them to convert from league to union. Back wise the window is more dependant on your speed and of course a good agent who cqan sell your wears

That sounds libellous to me.

What is this other story, or are you not prepared to tell us.
Seems to me that you are trying to discredit Jon Wilkin. Bit nasty of you dont you think?
You should PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

If he'd have been loyal wouldn't he have stayed at HKR?

Loyalty stops when professionalism starts.

There can be more to a deal than money. ie length of contract . international recognition. being comfortable in present surrounds. chance of making finals etc. but in the end if china offered wilkin one million a year to play tiddly winks then he would professing the benefits of a new and exciting challenge just like the rest of us would.

I would probably say the club HKR are the most dis loyal club in Superleague, they would sooner sign loads of overseas players than persevere with there own.
If Wilkin had stayed his progression would probably been stifled, 10 years loyalty with one club is a remarkable achievement these days, will Tomkins still be at the warriors before the decade end.

I also think he is part of some 17th century Puritan sect,He doesn't like to hear happy noisy celebrations

We were in the doldrums at the time. He moved to the Manchester area to study for a degree and Saints offered him the chance to continue playing rugby whilst studying. HTH

Gutted he'll probably never wear our red n white again. Quality player, as proven by the recent 4 nations imo.

Nice to see. As an older fan you start to get a bit of perspective, and I much prefer watching long-term players and youngsters than shiny new signings nowadays.

TBH I think the signings of the likes of Sinfield and Wilkin on deals that take them into their 30s is probably less to do with Union and more to do with the likely upcoming shortage of quality overseas players being available. Sts may well have got in last with Hohaia and Laffranchi. I suspect they'll be higher quality than most new imports we hear about. That means that you'll have more clubs jostling to sign any quality English players at the end of their contract.

If more than ten years ins't enough, one wonders how long a player needs to be at a club to be loyal in your world sir.

I did wonder if Wilkin would be tempted to go back to finish were he started. But he'll be 32 when this contract is over, so unless he's one of those rare players that just keeps there quality at the same level well into the third decade, I think Rovers would not be interested in a swan song.

Pitty for both Rovers and Wilkin as I'm sure deep downhe's still a fan of the Robins. You can still make you living and play whole heartedly for Saints yet stil have a soft spot for your home town club.

Hmmmm. Pretty sure you just did.