Re: Nathan Brown's list of priorities : Sat Apr 07, 2012 3:10 pm  

Bring Danny Brough with him



S57

Re: Nathan Brown's list of priorities : Sat Apr 07, 2012 3:12 pm  

Why waste money on Brough when we've got Lomax, Lance and Gaskell who are all better.

Re: Nathan Brown's list of priorities : Sat Apr 07, 2012 3:20 pm  

McClennan wrote:

Why waste money on Brough when we've got Lomax, Lance and Gaskell who are all better.

None of them can do the job that Danny brough can do. He might not be as good as lomax as individual but lomax ain't got the organisation qualities of brough or the rugby brain.

He's twice the player that Gaskell and lance are.

He's the ideal halfback that saints are in dire news for.

Re: Nathan Brown's list of priorities : Sat Apr 07, 2012 3:52 pm  

St pete wrote:

None of them can do the job that Danny brough can do. He might not be as good as lomax as individual but lomax ain't got the organisation qualities of brough or the rugby brain.

Yes they can. Gaskell has the kicking game of Brough (which let's be honest is 75% of the best of his game). Give them the coaching to learn how to control a game and he'll surpass the other qualities that some perceive Brough to have within 18 months.

Re: Nathan Brown's list of priorities : Sat Apr 07, 2012 4:15 pm  

Brough is tied down long term. There is no way Saints will pay the £500,000 needed to prize him away from huddersfield, just like no other team will.

An NRL half back ain't going to happen unless Sia has decided that he has had enough following the beating.

Some points of view are contradictory as well. Lomax ain't a half, we need a new FB, but we should not offload Lomax??????? So Lomax should be the young player of the year playing as water carrier???

Lance is here for 4 years, baring him asking for a return flight, then that is one half of our 6 and 7. If there was no cap, no overseas quota and no financial crisis to restrict transfer fees then I'd say sure we could have wholesale changes, but then so would every other team.

Re: Nathan Brown's list of priorities : Sat Apr 07, 2012 4:17 pm  

McClennan wrote:

Yes they can. Gaskell has the kicking game of Brough (which let's be honest is 75% of the best of his game). Give them the coaching to learn how to control a game and he'll surpass the other qualities that some perceive Brough to have within 18 months.

Great, we will just wait 18 month to see if Gaskell does hit the heights of Danny brough and if he doesn't .......


Danny Brough has been the best British halfback in super league for the past two years.

If you don't think we need a experinced halfback ASAP then your clearly blind.

Re: Nathan Brown's list of priorities : Sat Apr 07, 2012 4:19 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

Brough is tied down long term. There is no way Saints will pay the £500,000 needed to prize him away from huddersfield, just like no other team will.

An NRL half back ain't going to happen unless Sia has decided that he has had enough following the beating.

Some points of view are contradictory as well. Lomax ain't a half, we need a new FB, but we should not offload Lomax??????? So Lomax should be the young player of the year playing as water carrier???

Lance is here for 4 years, baring him asking for a return flight, then that is one half of our 6 and 7. If there was no cap, no overseas quota and no financial crisis to restrict transfer fees then I'd say sure we could have wholesale changes, but then so would every other team.

And that's the problem with giving a desperation signing of a fullback to play stand off and giving him four year deal.

Re: Nathan Brown's list of priorities : Sat Apr 07, 2012 4:26 pm  

St pete wrote:

And that's the problem with giving a desperation signing of a fullback to play stand off and giving him four year deal.

Yes but that is where we are.

Saying sign brough is just pie in the sky. May as well say sign Darren Lockyer as we would have more chance of signing him than Brough.

Re: Nathan Brown's list of priorities : Sat Apr 07, 2012 4:34 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

Yes but that is where we are.

Saying sign brough is just pie in the sky. May as well say sign Darren Lockyer as we would have more chance of signing him than Brough.

I've never once said sign brough, I've said we need a halfback in the shape of brough but I'd 100% take him if possible but as you say the is no chance.

I think brown has a real job on his hands trying to get a halfback as I can't see us signing one single player, never mind a halfback.

Re: Nathan Brown's list of priorities : Sat Apr 07, 2012 4:56 pm  

McClennan wrote:

Why waste money on Brough when we've got Lomax, Lance and Gaskell who are all better.

Are you serious?Brough is streets ahead of them all