if true, let's hope he's on a play and pay contract.....we wasted a load of cash on Scotty Hill and got 1 seasons worth of games for the price of 2 IIRC.

Scott Hill played 21 & 22 SL games in the two seasons he came over to London. Second he had a dodgy neck and didn't look right at all, but came back and pitched in. Came on big money, for Harlequins, and was a lynchpin in a much better side than the one we have a few years down the line. That was when we had Lenagan and money, hopefully we can now look to spend money on players and we won't immediately be able to sign the best and the brightest, but those who are attracted to the challenge of moving the club forwards and the fact that we are aiming to spend towards cap.

Actually I wouldn't mind. In the limited time I've seen him, I've been impressed. And as they say, if you're good enough you're old enough.

Yeah, he is the 6 of the future, but you wouldn't want him to be relied on as an 18 year-old to play the whole 2012 season and take the heat when it all goes wrong. Have him there to play 10-15 games next year, 20+ and the 28 when he is just 20. I wouldn't want him as a starting fixture already for 2012, have an old head in Gower to teach him how to play in the halves and the benefits will be a potential player from London in the England halves for years to come, rush the young lad and he may become another John Duffy who started at Warrington at the age of 16 and went on to be okay. Sargy could be better than Sam Tomkins, but a measured approach to introducing him into the team is best in my opinion.

I agree, he needs to be handled carefully. I like the idea of him playing the odd game this year and the next, but he shouldn't be given the full-time 6 job IMO. We put too much on LMS's shoulders and by the age of 23 he was jaded and needed to move on.

If we are going to persist with bring through our own juniors, we are going to need experienced heads in key positions. I'd dare say that Chad wouldn't be on big money, and moving him back to 9 is the right move.

If and only if Gower comes (and is fit, still think he'll take a while to return to league fitness and the game) he is the kind of half you'd want. I'd rather have a 34 year old gower then a journey man who's only strength is broken field play and a single dimension kicking game that seem to be the norm for SL.

I'm sure Gower has only just turned 33 and after double checking he would only turn 34 at the very end of April 2012, so a 1 year deal would seem to be a good fit for club and player, maybe more if he warrants it and the club wants him around. 33 is not that old for rugby league players at the minute, the days of everyone having to retire at 32 seems to be a thing of the past.

Lets be honest, he's probably extended his career by a couple of years by moving to the Top 14 rather then having to be battered playing full seasons in the NRL

True, unfortunately we have seen that a bit with Sailor, Rogers, and Tuqiri all returning to league, and two of those still playing into the 2011 season it does show you do extend your career, but it does mean we have lost their best years.

I've changed my tune, I'm not gonna say Sarginson is the only player on the pitch against Warrington to deserve a squad number, but he would be the first one to get one.

Krasniqi was excellent.

And no thanks to Judas Gower.

(a)Scott Hill = Big Money
(b)Scott Hill Injured but made to play because of (a)

IMO....Scott Hill didn't represent a very good return on investment for the club.

I have to say I didn't think that Scott Hill really justified himself. One of the factors that contributed to this was that I felt that he was on a different wavelength to some of the other players. Sometimes he'd tried stuff that perhaps someone at Melbourne might have switched onto but not with us.

I had similar thoughts during George Best's time at Fulham - although the gap there was somewhat more marked.