Alot more than you or me.

Ateotd, Potter has proved alot as a SL coach, and I think he will know alot more about who is a good signing than us. I'm also certain that he's got contacts in Australia, so he won't be forming his opinion of Ah Van as a player on 1 game.

We'll have to see. To me this is the type of signing that keeps back young English talent.

When you look at Potter's track record of bringing youngsters I think that it won't hold the youngsters back at all. If he's not performing, he'll be dropped, and when you look at all the youngsters we've got coming through (and who have already made their mark on SL) then I don't think this will happen.

Too many guys, you included I fear, don't get it yet. You are in good company though, cos neither did the RFL.

By bringing in the "mimimum home-grown" rules, the RFL dramatically puished up the value of "home-grown" players (inlcuding anyone coming out of your own academy).;

As a result, there is proportionately less money to spend on top-level quota players.

Add to this the current strength of the AUD and NZD against Sterling, and the effective closing-off by HMRC of questionable devices used by some clubs to squeeze more out of the cap for overseas players, and see where this is heading? Going forward, a general reduction in the level of quota player most SL clubs can afford.

Now, Bulls go and sign a young and - by the looks of things - exciting player who hasn't quite made the first team at the Warriors but who is sure to have potential. Bit like Shontayne Hape was, in fact? When we could have signed a 30-something. And its not as if Bulls have not just signed any young British backs, is it?

Sorry friend, but your argument is totally unconvincing, and you are fighting the last war anyway.

Any ideas why we've signed this chap and Ainscough on only 1 year deals?

On the positive side if they don't work out, fine they can leave.
On the negative side, if they set the league on fire, we suddenly have every other club eligible to poach them.

Because they are both a bit risky.

Ainscough has been dropped at Wigan and still has alot to prove.

Ah Van is yet to really make it at the top grade and will also need to improve to hold down a place.

No he isnt a reject, nobody has rejected him. He's asked for a release for a new opportunity. So what if he's played once, have you seen NZ Warriors backline? He's also played 50+ NRL games, thats good going for most Antipodean youngsters. Who do you think we should have signed instead, which English players?

ATEOD, Mick Potter, will have seen every game Ah Van has played, or a hell of a lot, through video footage, and probably a lot more viewing time than you of PAV, so I'll trust his judgement given his records as a proven 1st grade coach.

For the record, if theres good enough English talent around, it will shine and if theres any at Bradford then it may keep Patrick Ah Van out, although I seriously doubt it.

think both on 1yr deals to prove themselfs think both will have option of another couple of years in there if they go well that the club can trigger if both play out of there skins

Out of interest, would you include Peter Cusack in that group?

I'm certain you'll include Motu Tony, who held back Shaun Briscoe.

Don't forget those young, British prospects named O' Meley and Fitzgibbon. Oh wait...

What about Sam Moa?

Yep, we can include him in there too.

I wouldn't necessarily include Fitzgibbon & O'Meley, just because the Hull gentleman here is referring to players who haven't been "top class", whereas those two have been in Australia.

I would certainly think though that our friend here will be against the likes of Cusack & Moa stopping the development of young props at Hull, along with how Motu Tony stopped Shaun Briscoe becoming the player he has become since being first choice at K.R..

Lauaki too perchance?


Not trying cause argument or disparage the players I have mentioned, I'm honestly interested to see how he feels about those players, considering his views on Ah Van.

We have a limited number of quota spots.

We have chosen to fill one of them with this guy.

What is the problem?

If we'd've signed a forward would we be holding back a young British forward? Or if we signed a half back would we be holding back a young British half back? You're logic dictates that any overseas player brought in to fill a quota spot is detrimental to a British player. The only way around this seems to be to put a complete ban on any overseas player and not give the fans the oppotunity to see some fantastic players being developed over here. Surely it's better to bring a youngster in with a point to prove rather than an older player looking for a big pay day?

On the subject of Ah Van btw, I'd like to see the club resist the temptation to give him the number 5 shirt. Purely because by doing that, people will immediately compare him with Big Les.

Be far better off to let him have number 2 and our other first choice winger (be it Ainscough, Halley, Finigan or A.N. Other) take the number 5 shirt.

The sight of a large kiwi Number 5 will just make people think if he's not as good as Lesley Vainikolo, he's not good enough.


Some may consider it a small thing, but I guarantee it will have a mental effect on some fans seeing that number on him.

Must agree, the Warriors backline is already impressive, plus the signing of Krisnan Inu from the Eels will bring the lad less of a chance of making the first team, so he has looked elsewhere.

Should give him a chance to prove himself before judgeing. The good thing is he is young, and if he does set SuperLeague on fire, then he could be ours for a very long time. Hopefully.