completely agree.

I tend think after reading all the quotes and media bits that the signing of Westerman was something they had already planned for regardless of any signing or non signing of a halfback, so dont think his signing was a fall back signing.

Have to agree, no way did we decide to shell out a fee on a fallback signing, I think we have looked and we just can't do the deal that all sides are happy with. I am quite happy with that, I wouldn't want to put the club at risk with a gung ho attitude to recruitment and finance like our friends over the river.

We've suffered badly from the results of poor recruitment in the past. The club appears to me to have learnt from those mistakes and are only interested in players that add quality to the squad in specific areas. If they can cover more than one position that's great but utility value is no longer compromising quality. Added to that would appear to be the importance of players having the right attitude (I agree Tansey is on the very edge of this envelope) and what seems to be a preferred longer term strategy of securing younger British players where possible, paying for the privilege where necessary. If we get the half back cover we crave before the season starts then great otherwise it'll be another struggle in that area this season. However we shouldn't compromise on quality and it should be at the right price. Chase or Sammut would be great otherwise see what Nicklas has got and make the big signing when the quality/price and availability is right.

surely this is a better option then paying a big fee for either Sammut or Chase unless there willing to sign long deals.

every season someone falls out of favour in the NRL then come over here and do well. off the top of my head Lauatiti, Head, Bird, Sammut and Dobson have done it in recent years. so unless we can get a good deal on the two mentioned i'd be tempted to take the risk and wait and see who becomes available.

Just a question, how many would be happy with signing sammut if this was the end of this season and you were looking to recruit a Long replacement.

If you wouldn't be happy then surely signing Sammut on anything other than a one year deal is bad business as you end up with a pricey asset on your books that will hinder signing your real target 6 & 7.

From Sammut's P.O.V I'm sure he wouldn't want to come on a one year as he might as well stay in Wales and see a year out.

As for Obst, please don't sign him as we'll never beat you again.. constant thorn in our side..

Why would signing sammut for more than one season prevent us from signing a half next season?

I thought Sammut was under contract for 2012 at the Crusaders?

He is. We'd have to buy him out.

Don't understand this talk of a 1 year deal - two reasons - why on earth would Sammut go from a 2 year deal at Crusaders to 1 year at Hull - and why would Hull consider that a good business deal? Surely we should be looking for a good overlap on Long leaving?

He is, but he tweeted that he wants to beback in the nrl in twelve months.

Why overlap long? If Sammut plays 7 he'll need a organising half next to him.

He can play 6,9 and 1 before 7.

That being the case, and with a big fee involved, I can't think negotiations have been going well because Cas played Chase in a meaningless friendly against NL opposition and kept him on the field, risking injury, long after every other first teamer had been withdrawn.

Sammut played versus widnes.

He'd be a good enough scrum half in my eyes.

If he's not then I don't know what people are expecting, Cronk, Thurston etc?

To be honest I'd say he'd be a pretty good sigining due to the fact he would be an improvement on what we have at present which is what is needed.