Only 1 player at Cas worth £100,000.

I wouldn't pay anymore than £50,000.

What does this mean for Crooks? Can't see anything in it.

That's what I've been thinking. They even look alike from the east stand

An extra zero on there I think. He's hardly set the world alight. If we had £100k to spend on a player from another club I doubt arundel would be top of the list

he out of contract this year so why would we pay a fee. if he's made it clear he's leaving come end of his contract then I would of thought they'd take a lot less than 100k for him to move now as anything is better than nothing come November.

Don't see how it would say anything different to bringing in a different centre or keeping Turner TBH. Crooks is not going to be our first choice right centre next year and we can't just wait until he might be, we need to bring someone in.

Because of his age and the fact he's a Cas product? Same happened when we signed Turner didn't it? The £100k will be a mile off.

Don't get me wrong I agree totally.

Well, Turner wants to play back row, so he's not competing with Crooks long term, he's got his own problems with our back row looking as it is long term.
Signing somebody only 2 years older that plays in the position Crooks plays will directly affect him long term. If Crooks is 2 years away from being a regular I'd rather look for somebody better than Arundel in the short term.

It's more than likely a non story anyway.

Wonder if we'll be after anyone from Manly, HF told me earlier that because Manly have given Cherry Evans more money, they now have to release players. Steve Matai anyone? Or if it's a right centre then obvious choice is Lyon

But I'm still not seeing your point. Why should the signing of a new centre only be looked at for the short term in order to wait for Crooks? We should go out and sign the best centre we think we can get for the best deal, if that happens to be a potentially long-term player for us that's so much the better IMO. It's then up to Crooks to force his way in.

It should also be remembered that a couple of years down the line Yeaman will be into his 30s, so having a couple of young centres in the squad will hardly be a problem.

I agree with you Carl, we should sign the best centre we possibly can, and not just sign someone and wait 2 years for Crooks to take their place. Sign the best you can and at a good age and let Crooks force his way into the team.

I said I would rather sign a better centre (than Arundel) in the short term THAN sign Arundel long term when IMO Crooks has the more potential. Obviously if we could sign someone like Kallum Watkins then it would be a lot different.
Yeaman has 6 years at least in him yet.

But Arundel's not that good. That's the point, I'd rather sign better short term and develop Crooks, who has more potential.
Unless a really top class young centre came along.

Perhaps I didn't explain myself that well. I'm not bothered about signing Arundel at all. If we had the chance to sign another top class centre who was young then of course you would even if they was only a year or two older than Crooks. You would then hope that Crooks pushes and shows that he shoud be having a starting spot in the team.