Re: Laffranchi : Wed Sep 25, 2013 10:45 am  

If he was leaving I think it would have been announced for the last home game as the others were.

Re: Laffranchi : Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:17 am  

If we can afford to keep him, and there are no 6's available of sufficient quality, then we should keep him.

We need depth in the forwards, and like LMS I imagine we will see an improvement when he is not playing in a pack full of back rowers.

Re: Laffranchi : Wed Sep 25, 2013 11:42 am  

I'd be happy to keep him as a back rower, but where then does Wilkin go?

Re: Laffranchi : Wed Sep 25, 2013 12:06 pm  

I really don't think Wilkin will be the issue. He'll find a spot even if that's from the bench, or at 6. LMS may just end up back as a normal prop even though I like the idea of him at 13.

I think Wellens is the position really under threat as a regualar starter.
With injuries you can see him getting some bench starts, or if Lomax was taken out then he could play FB, rather than shuffle the wingers, but for a top game there is just no space.

I ran through a couple of packs on a different thread that you could feasably put out. I had even forgotten Amor and Wellens did not fit in.

It just feels to be a bit of a luxury (strange to say) to have so many pack players. Yet no 6.

Would it be better to hedge our bets and run without a Laffranchi in the hope of getting a 6 mid-year?

Or does the club have a target 6 in mind who will not be available till 2015 and so we may as well spend the money on Laffranchi. Better to have the luxury than run below cap????

Re: Laffranchi : Wed Sep 25, 2013 2:24 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

I really don't think Wilkin will be the issue. He'll find a spot even if that's from the bench, or at 6. LMS may just end up back as a normal prop even though I like the idea of him at 13.

I think Wellens is the position really under threat as a regualar starter.
With injuries you can see him getting some bench starts, or if Lomax was taken out then he could play FB, rather than shuffle the wingers, but for a top game there is just no space.

I ran through a couple of packs on a different thread that you could feasably put out. I had even forgotten Amor and Wellens did not fit in.

It just feels to be a bit of a luxury (strange to say) to have so many pack players. Yet no 6.

Would it be better to hedge our bets and run without a Laffranchi in the hope of getting a 6 mid-year?

Or does the club have a target 6 in mind who will not be available till 2015 and so we may as well spend the money on Laffranchi. Better to have the luxury than run below cap????

I'd rather keep Laffranchi than Wellens to be honest. Laffranchi can at least tackle properly, Wellens offers literally nothing at all. He's too slow to make any contribution in attack or defense in the backs and is too lightweight and slow to play in the forwards. His appearance on the bench for the last couple of months has been nothing more than sentimental folly. If we actually decide to extend his contract, the club is a joke.

My bet? We'll wait till season ticket early bird renewal period is over, then drop the bombshell that we've resigned both and the recruitment is over.

Best case is that the club hasn't put pen to paper with either and is scouring the globe for a stand off, the signing of whom will mean we don't give the two corpses new deals.

Re: Laffranchi : Wed Sep 25, 2013 2:47 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

I'd rather keep anyone than Wellens to be honest ls.

Well I never!

Re: Laffranchi : Wed Sep 25, 2013 3:43 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

I really don't think Wilkin will be the issue. He'll find a spot even if that's from the bench, or at 6. LMS may just end up back as a normal prop even though I like the idea of him at 13.

I think Wellens is the position really under threat as a regualar starter.
With injuries you can see him getting some bench starts, or if Lomax was taken out then he could play FB, rather than shuffle the wingers, but for a top game there is just no space.

I ran through a couple of packs on a different thread that you could feasably put out. I had even forgotten Amor and Wellens did not fit in.

It just feels to be a bit of a luxury (strange to say) to have so many pack players. Yet no 6.

Would it be better to hedge our bets and run without a Laffranchi in the hope of getting a 6 mid-year?

Or does the club have a target 6 in mind who will not be available till 2015 and so we may as well spend the money on Laffranchi. Better to have the luxury than run below cap????

With the sheer amount of back rowers and props now I'd be tempted to leave his undoubtedly big salary available if a quality 6 does come up half way through the season

Re: Laffranchi : Wed Sep 25, 2013 8:18 pm  

he's not powerful enough to be a prop and he's not quick enough to be a 2nd row

should have got rid

Re: Laffranchi : Thu Sep 26, 2013 10:27 am  

His stats are comparable to Manu, Soliola, Puletua and LMS, so he isn't doing too bad a job (this is without minutes played per game and how many games missed of course). If he's doing a lot with the kids on the training ground in regard to coaching then I'm not sure another 12 months is that bad an idea.

Re: Laffranchi : Thu Sep 26, 2013 10:32 am  

Saint Simon wrote:

With the sheer amount of back rowers and props now I'd be tempted to leave his undoubtedly big salary available if a quality 6 does come up half way through the season

I'd be tempted to go that way too, but like I said it maybe that the club has already identified a 6, but can't sign till 2015. In which case, there is an arguement for not letting the money just sit around.