Flannery is a very good player who will be missed next year. He lacks a bit of mongrel but so does a lot of this pack unfortunately, someone like Manu would be ideal to replace him. Interesting development if true as I've been told he's signed already so I'm not sure there's much room to maneouvre.

You're not seriously suggesting the intensity of the two games are sufficiently close to think Manu stands an equal chance?

When I did a head to head stat on the super league website (when it had the head to head) in manu and sia, manu blew him out the water in everything. Meters, breaks, tackles, off loads etc

The only sticking point for me is the length of the deal.

^ Is it two years? Any more than that would be madness.

I'm guessing it's 3yrs. Hull offered him 3yr deal which he's turned down.

THREE YEARS!

Have people completely taken leave of their senses? How many 36 yo players regularly do the business in SL?

Three years if true is absolutely crazy, and were I Nathan Brown I'd be trying to put a stop to it aswell.

In my opinion it was more intense for a forward when Wardy was playing. ill explain why.
Wardy had to play for the full 80 minutes, not for him the luxury of getting a breather after 20 mins then only coming back for the final 20 of the game.
Also in those days RL was a lot more rugged with a lot of cheapshots going unpunished. Todays RL is played by angels, compared to the trained killers of Wardys era.
After the match players didnt have the luxury of sports science to help them recover, there were no cryogenic chambers to take away the bumps and bruises. The medical science of fixing injuries was also far less developed. Any serious injury and your career was over.
Wardy had to be in work the next day lifting paving stones, whereas todays full time pros just go into rehabilitation, where they get hydro therapy, and physiotherapy etc.
Wardy had to play sunday, wednesday, sunday in a season that could encompass over 50 games. Todays players moan about having to play 30 games.

The key to being able to continue playing after 30 is in the legs. Provided the legs retain the speed then you can keep on going. Steve Menzies being the freakish example of a player who at 38 is still better than most backrowers in SL.
Manu is the type of player who if he loses a yard of pace could move into the front row. So while i think 2 years would be optimal, 3 years isnt that risky.

Not sure I agree with this. He plays the game at a high intensity and it wouldn't surprise me to see his level of performance drop off in the second year never mind the third if indeed there is one, not to mention the increased likelihood of injury as he gets older. He'll be 33 early into next year, it would be crazy to offer him three years on (assumedly) big money.

I'd take him on two years as he's showing no signs of Lodi g it at moment and I'd also be happy to offer a 3rd year option in our favour.

I'd take the risk with Manu personally, I think he is quality in a market that doesn't have great players in it and that isn't going to change anytime soon with the NRL salary cap increasing. We're competing for 2nd tier players and Manu is definitely at the higher end of the scale, despite his age.

I just want us to sign a Prop whose legs are too fat to pull up his socks. They're always ace.

or as the old saying goes,

In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.

British RL fans in the years ahead are going to really have to readjust their expectations as to the talent they will see in the competition, not only will our best seek their fortune down under, but few aussies of any quality will deem it worth their while coming to these shores.
We have already seen the first signs of the future, but once the NRL salary cap grows and the wealth gap between a buoyant Australian economy and an economically depressed UK economy widens. Then the trickle may turn into a flood of players seeking their fortune down under.

That would be ideal.

yep, it'll be 2nd rate imports or older 1st rate ones. I prefer the latter