If you are right I`m glad he turned us down. Mason is an over the hill gobby liability.

Only time will tell,i dont think he is over the hill though he his only 30.

If you look back through older posts you'll see that I said I'd prefer sidlow over mason right back when mason became available. Think sidlows a better fit for what we need in our squad. Mason may be a better player on his day but he's a luxury we can't afford without having the solid players like sidlow to cover when he has a brain fart.

Franny must not of had that thinking when he offered KM a deal 2 weeks ago, and the only reason Sidlow is there now is that KM turned it down ,but there again what does FC know.

Maybe Franny`s offer was less than Mason wanted or maybe Platt`s rumoured proposed move to Salford falling thru because of Salford`s financial position scuppered any deal. But like Mat says Sidlow is preferable for the Bulls. Also think Masons onfield attitude could give the wrong signals to the younger players.

I'd have Mason over Sidlow every time but what's probably happened is Sidlow accepted what we have to spend and Mason didn't.

I'm encouraged it looks like we tried to sign both. Add one more prop and it's beginning to look like a squad - a thin squad but nevertheless a squad.

15 tries in 87 appearances (AS) against 8 tries in 203 appearances (KM)
Slightly less average mtrs gain last year but set against 2 errors, 12 penalties and 29 offloads (AS) as opposed to 13 errors,25 penalties and only 2 offloads (KM) for virtually same number of appearances
On his day mason can be great but we need a solid grafter and can't afford to be on back foot from errors and penalties so IMO sidlows the better fit for where we are as a team. If we could have got mason too then great but if its one or the other then the stats speak for themselves.

I suspect the collapse of the deal involving Platt heading to Salford has left us unable to bring in a 2nd Prop. I think Mason would have definitely improved our pack but we have a tight budget to stick to unfortunately.

I fear it could be a tough year for us once a few injuries to the pack inevitably happen.. but we have SL rugby and for that we should be very grateful.

I doubt many teams have greatly strengthened next season with the exception of Hull FC.

We will finish above Widnes, London, Cas, Wakefield and Salford for starters.

I think atm Hull FC are looking like a serious contender now;

Wigan have lost some decent players and not replaced them
Hudds have strengthened but will most likely crumble come the end of the season
Leeds dont seem to have improved their pack a great deal but they are always around come the playoffs
Saints havent done much as of yet but usually come good
Wire dont need to get any more players they have keep the same squad and still look the strongest
KR are similar to us getting the odd player here and there

The season may be a long old slog but maybe thats what we need a hard fought campaign that shows we can battle the best. (keep injuries to a minimum of course)

Table prediction (i know its early)

1. Warrington
2. Hull FC
3. Catalan
4. Wigan
5. Leeds
6. Saints
7. Bradford
8. Huddersfield
9. Wakefield
10. Hull Kr
11. Widnes
12. Castleford
13. London
14. Salford

Dream on mystic dream on.

Our squad isn't a whole lot worse than it was last year and without the 6 point deduction we would have finished above all the aforementioned teams and Huddersfield to boot. Finishing in a similar position is by no means unattainable. If we finally learn to close out games we'll win more than we did last season too.