Done deal.

Like I said at the start of the thread next year there are too many players ahead of dixon. I'm all for growing our own, but sometimes the quality ahead is too much for them to break through in which case we need to move them on. Manu, Sia, TP, Wilkin, Flanaghan. It's too much for Dixon to break through that line up, only TP will drop out that line up any time soon. Dixon would have to wait some 3 to 4 years to become a starting 2nd rower and that's assuming we would not get anyone else coming through the ranks or buy someone else in.

He's not bad, just not good enough to replace the standard of player we will have next year in the back row.

In a way it raises the question of how long you have as an academy player to make the breaks through. I would argue that once you hit 22/23 if you are not making the team then you will not get another contract.

This is a funny one for me with Dixon, at the beginning of the season he was running in tries for fun then got dropped.....why?
Did I miss him being a hole in the defense or something?

I cant understand the logic of signing Flanagan but getting rid of Dixon.

For me Flanagan epitomises the word journeyman.

Flanagan tackles hard but so far i have yet to see him offer anything else.
It says a lot when the much maligned Chris Flannery hits him for six statistically speaking.

There is a good arguement for keeping dixon over flanaghan. However given that flanaghan has been signed, keeping both is not really an option when their wages could be better used in areas where we lack depth. I suppose it's just bad luck on Dixon's part that he is in an area where there is great strength in our team and he has been squeezed out. The flanaghan signing is another Royce thing though, we signed a back rower when we had adequate coverage there and if anything we are a little over subscribed this year.

I would not be too harsh on Flanaghan though as it's his first year in the team and has adapted much better than other individuals and much more quickly. Once again if we signed the wrong type of player for a position we have lots of strength in it's not their fault, if they are offered a contract they are going to take it even if there are 20 backrowers already.

I doubt it. It's just that the coaching staff changed.

Indeed it is.


He was told very early in the season he was free to talk to other clubs and I believe he's agreed a very good 3yr deal with another super league club.

Gutted that he is leaving but fair do to the kid he appears to be backing himself he will be in the starting 13 at Salford, can't realise your potential being 18th man every week or playing in the reserves.
Thought that he really showed his potential at the beginning of the year and seemed to turn the corner with Royce as he had started to select him over Flannery but appears that his face does'nt fit with Mike Rush so probably better to move on as I beleive he was only offered a 12 month contract at Saints. I have a feeling Saints might regret this in the future.

Dixon only played early as flannery took ill at London on game day. Flannery was selected over Dixon.

Dixon only played early as flannery took ill at London on game day. Flannery was selected over Dixon.

I know that was the case with the game in London but there were a couple of games at the end of Royce's reign when Flannery was in the 19 (Hull was 1 if I recollect correctly) were Dixon was selected and he started and Flannery was on the bench or not in the team. I also recollect Royce being very complimentary about Dixon-all that I was implying was I think he had changed Royce's opinion of him.

He was. Royce said at the time that he had asked Dixon to work on a couple of things in the off season, like running lines, and he had addressed these, improving his game. I thought Dixon was great under Royce.

He was certainly a better attacking option than either flannery or flanaghan

Has he signed for Salford then?!

Could turn out to be a poor decision by saints. Would it not be better to send him on a year long loan to see how he gets on. I rated him very much. Good luck to the guy

No announcement has been made by Salford. (Saints won't make an announcement)

To be quite honest Im a little disappointed we are letting go of Dixon as he seemed to be showing signs of improvement at the start of this year....

As previously stated, if Dixon goes and Gaskell decides to join a club that values his abilities we might as well pop a couple of coins on the academy's eyes and send it on its merry way down the river Styx.

McManus can hype it into the stratosphere with grandiose claims of "Golden Generations" but if we keep getting shut there really is little point.

But surely it's not the rushing several through at once that matters it's the constant turning out and trying out of players.

Graham, Roby, Clough, Eastmond, Makinson, Lomax, Jones,

If we had not lost Graham and Eastmond to bigger paydays, then we would have a very impressive line up of players there.

Don't get me wrong I'd rather we kept our best players, but Saints could not compete with the NRL and RU, so we can't hold Saints responsible for the loss of Graham and Eastmond (although I felt the Eastmond senario could have been handled better earlier on).

I don't beleive we can fill Saints with Saints only players at the moment we have 4 Saints players starting regularly for the team, next year it maybe 5 or 6. It's going to go up and down but in the end the cap means we can't hold all our best, and we can't expect to hold onto players if there are better in their positions.

Manu/Sia/TP/Wilkin/Flanaghan - I think we are just a bit overloaded to keep another backrower. It's not Dixon's fault, but which one of these would we choose not to play next year?

Well, we had a mighty fine go of doing so last year and we made it to the CC semi and to another GF and were actually in a winning position (which made a change), with third spot in the league. Most of the season in 2011 was spent with a mostly Saints team and of course we beat the (now) Broncos with only one non-English player playing.

So I really do think it's not the inconceivable notion that some fans seem to think it is. But even so, allowing good young players to go when they have played such a significant part in our achievements of the previous year is, frankly, very poor.

A bit of a shame, but he's at the age where he needs to play regularly and move beyond being a fill in player and he's never really moved beyond what he was 2 years ago (whether that is down to him or how the club have used him may be up for debate of course). Either the club don't think he's worth his wages, or that we have a crop of forwards able to play in the back row that have more potential and need blooding.

Rushing players through is all well and good if you're getting a pretty even spread across the positions - not six stand-offs at once whilst Graham and Clough (a converted back row) are the only two props since Paul Forber.



What does Flanagan offer that Dixon can't duplicate (tackling perhaps, but Dixon is a far better attacking forward). Wilkin has done bugger all for a long time and is no doubt on a hefty wedge. To me the Dixon situation has been handled appallingly. A good coach would have had him starting by now.

Flanaghan is a bigger defensive presence, but Dixon has showed some excellent attacking ability wide of the ruck.

Whilst he's still showing an excellent workrate in defence, I'd say its Wilkin that's lacking input given the reletive wages that I [iimagine[/i they're all on. Flannery, whilst also willing, is fairly flacid at times.

Following Friday's selection and assuming you take 4 backrowers in a squad of 17, I'd say I'd be happiest with TP, Flanaghan Sia and Dixon being picked.
Flanaghan has the workrate and defensive prowess to lock in the attacking ability of the others and, as we saw a glimpse of on Friday, isn't without the ability to do some ball playing. I think he's your best chance to get an effective old school ball playing 13. Sia and TP give you size going forward and indefence and then Dicko would give some excellent variation off the bench.

I may get bagged for this, but I would rather have kept Dixon for another few years and give Clough a new deal than resign Wilkin to a long term deal.

I think McManus dropped another massive recruitment b*ll*ck with that one.

I do think you have some valid points here. We do seam to produce a lot of halves. But there are a few more forwards further down the pipe line.

I can well see the arguement with Flanaghan, when we signed him I was a bit surprised that we needed another backrower, with Flannery, TP, Wilkin, Sia, Dixon, Magennis etc. But then there were stranger signings at the time last year.

I also get the Wilkin thing, but we have backrowers a plenty and so I can see the arguement for shifting one out.

Still 6 in the team at the weekend is no bad effort, (FB) P. Wellens (W) T. Makinson (U) J. Jones (SH) J. Lomax (H) J. Roby (U) P. Clough

Agreed. Whilst Wilkin has an amount of talent others don't, we have rarely seemed to convert that in to victory grabbing application on the pitch.
Whilst I'll never knock his commitment, his biggest contribution at the moment seems to be a high tackle count. Now, to be fair, most clubs have a guy doing that who'll be on less wages than wilkin and probably have an extra stone for going forward with.

We're in a salary capped game which favours the wrestle up front. Paying extra for a backrow with Wilkin's talents is probably not the most effecitve decision at the moment.