Re: In's (or lack of) : Sun Jul 10, 2011 6:56 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

The club has no ambition to win anymore. The board's focus over the last few years has been Project Stadium and ensuring the club has a future. It's an admirable strategy really and testament to the coaches we've had that we've remained competitive up to now. But it's over as far as winning trophies goes, probably for a good few years as well. We don't have enough quality senior players in the side and next season we'll only really have Roby, Wilkin and Puletua that are top class players. Our pack will be beaten by all the top sides and we've still not sorted the fullback and wing positions which adds to us having only one centre since Talau left.

It'll be interesting to see whether the focus ever switches back to winning trophies again. I must admit I cringed or rather winced when Colquitt insisted we're spending to the limit of the salary cap last week. If that's true we're doing really poorly.

Spot on mate, that's exactly what I've been saying. I think the club still has ambition to win things but trying to do it cheap.

While the stadium has secured our future it's just a shame it's come at such a cost to the team.

The one centre situation is shocking by the club. In all the recruitment has been awful over the last 5 years. We've still brought some good players in like TP, sia, perry, shenton and lms but it's the lack of strike players, x factor players that's put us out the top 3.

Re: In's (or lack of) : Sun Jul 10, 2011 7:20 pm  

Jeez. Saddened! and Pete should get a room. They can then drink each other into a vortex of depression and gloom, and leave the rest of us to hold on to some hope!

Re: In's (or lack of) : Sun Jul 10, 2011 7:25 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Jeez. Saddened! and Pete should get a room. They can then drink each other into a vortex of depression and gloom, and leave the rest of us to hold on to some hope!

I agree. Some hilarious comments.

Re: In's (or lack of) : Sun Jul 10, 2011 7:26 pm  

BigRedV wrote:

Is it still legal for clubs to bring in ringers from the NRL for the play-offs i.e. Johns, Morley etc a few seasons ago?

Only if your team's name is Warrington

Re: In's (or lack of) : Sun Jul 10, 2011 7:27 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Jeez. Saddened! and Pete should get a room. They can then drink each other into a vortex of depression and gloom, and leave the rest of us to hold on to some hope!

When were in our brand new spanking stadium while being fighting to make the playoffs at least we can say we've done it with youth.

Re: In's (or lack of) : Tue Jul 12, 2011 8:10 am  

Well we seem to be doing fine with the youth at the minute. Running fourth in the comp, with a possibility of catching third, maybe second. We're in the quarters of the Challenge cup. Doesn't seem to bad to me. I think it was Alan Hansen who said you never win anything with youth, I think Sir Alex and the lads proved that is not the case. Lets just wait and see how it goes before we cast off these youngsters as not good enough to wear the red Vee

Re: In's (or lack of) : Tue Jul 12, 2011 12:18 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

The club has no ambition to win anymore.

I was about to disagree with you and then spotted the Flannery re-signs thread.

Now I can understand your thinking

Re: In's (or lack of) : Tue Jul 12, 2011 1:19 pm  

ashy_06 wrote:

Well we seem to be doing fine with the youth at the minute. Running fourth in the comp, with a possibility of catching third, maybe second. We're in the quarters of the Challenge cup. Doesn't seem to bad to me. I think it was Alan Hansen who said you never win anything with youth, I think Sir Alex and the lads proved that is not the case. Lets just wait and see how it goes before we cast off these youngsters as not good enough to wear the red Vee

Physical maturity plays a much bigger part in RL, though. Too many kids (unless they're physical freaks) in one squad mean they'll just get pushed off the park.

Re: In's (or lack of) : Tue Jul 12, 2011 1:31 pm  

Am I correct in thinking that who ever you sign from now on has to be British, because you overseas quota for next year is already full?

Re: In's (or lack of) : Tue Jul 12, 2011 1:38 pm  

LovesToSpooge wrote:

Am I correct in thinking that who ever you sign from now on has to be British, because you overseas quota for next year is already full?

I think so - Perry/Lance/Laffranchi/Soliola/TP = 5 non-fed.

Flannery/Meli signed pre-08 so don't count on the non-fed quota.

Anyone know what the 2008 non-fed cut off date was? TP signed in April 2008 I think. If TP is exempt, then we have a space, otherwise we're done.

I hope we're done anyway - 7 is 2 too many in my opinion and the sooner the exemptions all expire the better.