if indeed moore does cop A 4 to 8 game ban we would be better getting in a hooker on a months loan if howarths too slow or someone like travis burns allowing finn to rotate at hooker with sio

This.

We need somebody, Sunday is a good example that Howarth isn't the solution to the hooker role, and especially if Moore's ban will be extended.

I don't think even with Moore, we would turn Warrington or maybe even Catalans over, but following those two, we have the bottom four to play in a row, and think this period is going to really shape our season, win some of these and the top 8 likely, lose a big part and we are looking at the middle 8's.

Add in to this, what happens during this tie, if Miller or Finn get injured, with the increasing injuries to our back line, it is unlikely that Craig Hall would move into the halves at the moment

Not how it works unfortunately.

I don't get you and Bren and the others on this one. Scott Moore has as bad if not worse history than Chase yet we are all now in awe of the lad and panicking at his loss.

If we had anybody available to replace Finn or Miller or Moore if injured I'd agree. Problem is we have not. We have Howarth who is a band aid player, great cover for the odd game but not for a prolonged period, not if you're serious about progress.

As for Chase's affect on the club I'm bored to death on that one to be honest. Clean sheet every time for me though I fully accept this is trickier than most. It worked with Brough and numerous others but occasionally failed with people like Sammut, its the risk you take.

One last point, Cas made Chase think he was god almighty and they rightly got rid when he started to believe it, not an unusual RL story. However he went to the good Dr's meat grinder (Salford) which is a club that's been destroyng players for years (remember a certain Tim Smith?). Sure it ended bad for Smith with us and probably would with Chase but that doesn't mean we won't get some great times as we did with Smith.

I regailed you with this story before but Kear once told us at a SWAG meeting (I think) that "the people you'd ask into your team are not always the ones you'd invite home for sunday dinner" - I won't say which little player he was on about

. Basically sometimes you need the player more than the person and that's the risk you take to suceed and that's the Coaches hardest decisions.

No thanks.

A definite no for me, he's left Cas, Salford and now Leigh under a cloud, what does that tell you? And what makes us think that we have the management that can help this leopard change his spots?

Its a yes from me, give him a last chance

I remember that quote from Kear and I absolutely agree.
I also agree we have made bad eggs into good ones.

The difference with Chase is that he isn't a project or last shot when we have nothing else. If Moore or Cockayne (spell?) hadn't worked it didn't really affect the team. Smith was a broken product but he was a good fit for the team so worth a shot when we didn't have any other options.


What we have is working now. We don't need an emergency half back replacement today (we may do tomorrow)
Chase for me is your lead guy. You build you team around him. And I don't want to build a team around him.
Chase is unplayable when he is on it, but adding him to the team will completely change our structure.
I don't think Finn or Miller would be as good if he was in the team.
Nothing to do with his personality.......though I'm not inviting him to dinner any time soon either.

If we need to cover Moore I want a hooker.
If we need to cover half back I'd rather get a young kid with skills and something to prove.

Anyway, I'd have thought Leeds would need him more badly than we do.

Yes I would have him i agree totally with Vasty, The lad as had problems with depression and I know what that is like the one person who could get him right is not coming until end of the year but he is worth a shot.

Even at this stage couldn't we get JK's opinion regarding the possible signing of Chase
Or even be a part of the negotiating process
Don't believe that would be a conflict of interests to Batley