Not incorrect. Brown sent Lunt out on loan to Leeds to facilitate re-signing Scott Moore. That is factually correct. What is incorrect about that?

I made no comment about Scott Moore's talent or otherwise.

Let's just face it - Gaskell was never as good as some numpties thought he was to begin with. He was extremely raw and limited when he first came into the team and hasn't improved an awful lot since (for whatever reason) - if anything he's gone considerably backwards now opposition defences know about him. Brown's had a good look at him and come to the same conclusion. He won't be at Saints next season and only time will tell if that is a good thing or not, but all the evidence to date suggests that it probably will be for all concerned. When we are so desperate for halves, the fact that 2 successive coaches (even if one of them was Rush) have decided that he isn't up to the job with so few other alternatives available says everything that needs saying. Add him to the same "initial promise unfulfilled" pile as Foster and move on.

Sorry my bad I wasn't clear. The incorrect was to do with the reason Gaskell has gone.

The coach? So our coaches don't decide who goes out on loan then? Who does? The chairman? Mike Rush? Who?

The reason Gaskell's gone is that he just isn't good enough. Simple.

It's common sense for Gaskell to go given that he's been stopped from playing. No point throwing money away, just to spite a player.

Lets not forget we offered him a contract, so I don't buy it that we think he is now below us only a few months later.

I also don't buy the drop in form. If you were to pick the form team in SL, you would need more than just 3 games.

I have no problem with Brown picking his own team and players, that's fine. I'm not getting into the youth arguement, his record at Huddersfield and here shows he will play them if they are what he wants.

Not sure why we have took Howarth, just seams like a nothing signing, he's not a replacement for anyone really. Although it does show how shocking our recruitment has been to not even have an understudy ready for Roby. Don't give me Lance, as Lance was not bought to be a hooker, he was bought and has played as a half.

Just goes to show that playing Roby for 80 mins has been more down to need rather than good planning.

From a Salford p.o.v. I wonder if Brian Noble has had any input. He had Howarth at Wigan and never played him.

Indeed, but in the talent-starved marketplace of the moment someone like Gaskell is pretty much golddust - every team in the league would be offering him a contract in the hope he develops into a player in some position even if they had no immediate plans or place in the squad for him.

That was the point I was making about player development. That is exactly the point although you speak to recruitment rather than development.

Saints still do not phase in young players. They just drop them in when there is an injury. That is such an outmoded approach it is unreal. We should be phasing in young players for all the positions so that we do have understudies and if over a period of time they do not meet the standard Saints want for their first grade players then let them go but to be unprepared like this after so much effort has apparently gone into the youth development programme I think is very poor, not to mention foolish.

The reason Gaskell gone as nothing to do with playing or Nathan brown

Sorry but you can't say that without backing it up or at least being willing to PM people with whichever crazy rumour you've come up with.

Now there's a player who would be great cover for Roby !!! Howarth = dead rubber

I disagree, we do develop young players, however we don't develop them in all positions and neither should we. We need the best players in the best slots, if that player plays elsewhere then we should be looking to recruit.

We have developed the likes of Roby/Graham/Eastmond/Lomax/Jones/Dixon/Ashurst/Clough/Wellens/Makinson/Walker/Emmitt/Higham....

All these players have been drip fed into place at Saints and are still playing. We can't expect to keep them all, but we do develop players.

My point about no stand in for Roby is that in the last few years we have concentrated on buying and developing players without thinking about where they are going to play. We have 4 very very decent players who can play Fullback. Yet at hooker we have just relied on Roby since Cunningham left. Cunningham never did it on his own apart from a short period of time in the 90's. He had Moore/Roby and Higham as stand in hookers.

We have had an unbalanced side, due to recruitment. Recruitment is there to fill the holes we can fill from youth development. Cunningham has been gone for 3 years now. But it takes a busted Roby to finally realise what the rest of the league know, you can't opperate with just one hooker.

I disagree but I'm not going to debate the issue further as I'll just get yet more abuse. All I will say is that with a few exceptions we just drop people in at times of injury. Even Wellens was a case of that. We need to stop that attitude and start phasing players in.

Do share...