Perfectly sensible starting him on the bench given he’d had 3 weeks off, if it’s true, he needs to reign it in, regardless of whether he’s our best prop (Yates has probably held that mantle since he got here anyway imo).

From what I hear it’s going to take a lot to bury that hatchet. Duckie might get his wish in seeing the back of Vaughan.

No one player is bigger than the club. If his Ego makes him believe he is an automatic starter and then throws his toys out the pram when it does not go his way then I wish him well for his future.

We have been here done that with players trying to run the club look how that turned out, we only need players that get behind the club and what the club is trying to achieve. They may not always get it right but it’s about the team and not an individual.

All this assumes the stories are true of course and if so I for one will be disappointed if he goes but at the cost of disharmony no thanks.

It's Autumn, and were entering bad apple season.

I really hope this isn't true. When he is on the pitch he is arguably our best prop forward.

10:20pm and the man of steel still hasn't been announced, is it usually this late?

Will there be an appeal by Saints then.

Lewis.

Not exactly a high bar!

My wish was for Vaughan to play like he did when he first arrived against the easy teams, (he had a habit of getting himself suspended for games agains the big clubs during school holiday periods).

If we don’t get that, he can go with my blessing. He’ll be 34 next season anyway.

I’d like to know why Vaughan managed to become so in-match fit during the 3 weeks paid holiday he had!?

I expected him to be ripping it up like a lion vs Saints and KR, all fresh from action…
He wasn’t even ripping up dandelions!

Re Bullock.

I don’t think there is a fallout with him.

I think what’s happened here is, we signed Yates and Bateman, and we probably contacted Salford to loan them a player.

My guess is we offered Salford one or two of our younger fringe players, but Rowley said ‘no, but we’ll have Bullock!’
Hence the bizarre timing where we’re extend his contract one week, and loan him out a week later.

I’m guessing Salford tied Wire’s arm up behind our back, so we had to agree to let them take Bullock instead of Wood or Holroyd or Whitehead, so we could clear cap space for Bateman.

I don’t believe Bullock just fell out of favour, or suddenly became a poor player in 7 days. The cap and shortness of time leaving Chambers with no other choice but to agree.

I think Bullock was always going to be our bench prop or 18th man throughout the remainder of the season, maybe even ahead of Musgrove.

I think he will be back with the team next season.
I don’t know this for sure, but it’s the only way I can make sense out of it.

Any allegedly falling out between coach and player, the club has to back the coach regardless of the player. But it might the coach going before the player if what I got told is correct. A certain Mr Bennett is making moves to bring Burgess back to South’s.

I believe Sam would not break his commitment to us. Lets see.