Fair comments, but I think this signing is more about 2012 and beyond and avoiding the transfer market fight for him next year (since Agar's been targetting him for a while). The point on creativity I think is more about him offering more than an extra prop at 13, Fitz/O'Meley at prop and Westerman at 13 potentially offering more than Dowes(or Radford)/O'Meley at prop and Fitz at 13. More in hope than expectation though.

I guess it depends how much we've got available to spend. If we've paid £150k for Westerman as rumoured what's to say we haven't got another £150k in the bank should we need to spend it? I'd bet my house that we do. (if the right player comes up)

I'm surprised though that we could tempt a scrum half away from someone for £300k. (although maybe fitting them under the salary cap is a bigger issue than transfer fees)

Why did agar say it was fantasy the bast@d

What is we could not get anyone else, do we just not spend the money and not get stronger in the meantime? It's very rare you have to pay a fee and who is to say we would not do it again next off season? It's not rubbish to say who else is available, it's a relevant question, you can't just say we should have spent it on someone better and not give an example.

For two years we have played with a prop at 13, Westerman is a 13 and a mixture of an old and new style, it has to be an improvement on our previous style of play.

Why?????? We had options but specifically Agar decided to play a prop at 13 , first Radford and now Fitz. Is Westerman £175k better than what we had. Could we not at least have tried the theory out , ie , not playing a prop at 13 , before concluding that it would only work if we spent £175k on a , largely other than his first season , unproved 13?? Westerman may well be the answer to our prayers and I hope he is but I still do not understand the logic.

There is no logic where Agar and coaching is concerned. Westerman is a panic buy.

A panic buy? We've been after him for months.

I agree we had other options and when Washy did play there we looked a better attacking unit but having paid the money for him he won't be ignored. Whiting was needed in other areas and maybe Washy was not producing in training?

Westerman is not an out and out ball playing 13 but he has good skills and is mobile which will give us better options with ball in hand.

Its a good job I haven't said that then. I could give you loads of examples of players I would have tried to get but its all irrelevant as I have no idea how much it would cost to get them and just how much money was available for a fee. My point was always about priorities and spending one of our biggest ever transfer fees on a player that realistically isn't going to solve our biggest problem (not scoring enough points) doesn't make much sense to me, particularly if it effects our recruitment. At no point have I said Westerman isn't good enough or that we should have signed someone "better". I really do think people are clutching at straws if they think having Westerman at 13 will suddenly solve all our attacking problems though. The major issue is going to be having 2 fit halfbacks on the pitch for the majority of the season which I dont see happening unfortunately and I can see us all having the same discussions about it yet again next season.

panic buy, well see who is gonna have to panic buy has mason got his visa yet

Well i very much doubt it, but if we ever did at least we can afford to

I'm not convinced westerman will be a great signing, however he has the potential to be. He's not a priority for next season but would likely be from 2012 onwards. Over 4 years, the fee is only £40k extra a year and maybe we'd have had to pay that to secure him when he was on the open market anyway.

I would have preferred to get a half back in but if there's none available then I'm happy that we've tied up one of the country's best prospects for the next 4 years

Good point you make, i would prob say 20k or more a season at least, then taking into account the loss of that to the cap, its not as bad as it seems