Because then we could have a hull style merry go round of players, let our "no hopers" go and fill the team with superstars from Salford and Wakefield. This would make some of the posters on this board happy, even of we did drop put of the top eight, at least we would have got rid of Gardner and meli

Proof to whom? Saints? Congratulations. I mean, even a serial killer will find some way to justify his actions. Objective proof - well, that's something else entirely. I'm wondering just how many logical fallacies you can fit into one post. First the argument from final consequences, then the straw man and finally the moth-eaten "No true Scotsman" retort ("to any [ireasonable[/i eye" etc.)

Which kind of sinks your argument. Not that you really had one in the first place.

Can you translate that into St Helens talk please?

rlBy all meansrl.

I'm from parr mate, I'm struggling to understand any of your posts but I gather the main point is being highly negative and ripping the team to shreds to sign players that we can't afford or ain't available.

Where is the "logical fallacy" in us not being able to sign any better players because there simply are none available? Can you post a link to a condescending wiki page that lists some of these magical quality players we can go and bring in now to settle the debate one way or t'other?

Get back in your box you pleb

It's a fallacy because any player I choose to list will fall foul of the "to any reasonable eye" backstop clause. From what I've seen of Ratchford he is quick enough, talented, British and - even more importantly - young. If he isn't showing Meli's best form for Salford that's [iprobably because he's playing for Salford[/i. But no matter what I say about Ratchford (or any other player for that matter) - it won't make a lick of difference because "any reasonable eye" can see he is not good enough.

It's an argument that cannot be won. You've loaded the game from the start.

First of all people havent loaded the game from the start,thats the way Saints work now,we cant pay fees so it has to be an out of contract player and they have to be same federation.

You have named Rachford and fair play most people on here agree with that one,but Who is to say we didnt look into Rachford ?Without knowing Saints wage structure we cant say if signing him was an option. I cant remember the timing of Warrington signing him was it before or after we signed players ? Anyway all clubs know who is coming of contract and will make offers acording to need and wage structures,Warrington offered him by all accounts a very good deal.

I agree that these contracts should be the last for Meli and Flanno ( provided there are better English players to replace them with ) I hope we are in the running to sign Welham when his deal runs out at HKR.

I bet Salford matched it , I imagine he went for the glory as much as the money. The mistakes been made anyway's giving Meli a 2 year deal was silly and means a move for someone like Ratchford would probably have been dependant on getting someone to pick up the last year of Meli's contract. For me giving Ade an extention after seeing Makinson perform so well was a waste of cap space.

You're right - no-one knows Saints' wage structure. But we [ido know[/i the chairman has repeatedly stated we are spending up to the cap. Again, those are HIS words - not mine. If we take them at face value we are as well placed to sign Ratchford as Warrington. They can't spend more than the cap just as we can't. Granted, we might have to offload a couple of players - but we certainly aren't talking beyond the realms of possibility.

We could look at poaching talent from other academies (other clubs have no problem with this), or - at a push - we could look at the lower leagues or even union (given sufficient time to develop). Not every player in the lower leagues is a certain failure and we have to remember that their form will increase in proportion to the surrounding talent. Hell, at this moment I'd settle for nothing less than a solid player. In the case of Meli we would lose some finishing power, but this would in no way make it impossible for us to reach the Grand Final (especially given the scoring potential of Lomax, Shenton, Foster, Wheeler and Gaskell). And if we did make the GF we might just profit from not fielding the greatest liability in the history of Grand Finals.



I can cope with Flannery. He doesn't make mistakes and, when fit, he offers a modest attacking threat. Meli is nothing more than a stuffed shirt. The Aussies figured him out years ago. The Saints fans did, too. Indeed, the only people who haven't are those running the club. I give McManus enormous credit for securing the new stadium. But over the last few years some of his recruitment decisions have been shaky to say the least. Meli's original extension was a joke. His defence was a mess and his attempts to do anything other than catch a high ball (in the most tragi-comic fashion imaginable) were shambolic. Couple this with our total disrespect toward the kicking discipline (which went on for three - perhaps four years) that cost us plenty.

In hindsight, yes.

Not really an excuse. Ade only got his deal late in the season (he signed it a few weeks ago).

I'm willing to take your word for it although I was under the impression he signed it a while ago. You can make an argument for Makinson's place in the starting line-up for sure, but Gardner was also in very good form (possibly career best) before being injured and on that form I have no problems with keeping him.