Re: Flannery re-signs : Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:26 pm  

At this point, this is good news.

But time will tell.

Re: Flannery re-signs : Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:48 pm  

Always seen him as deadwood tbh. Who else is there though

Re: Flannery re-signs : Tue Jul 12, 2011 5:22 pm  

It's disappointing, of that there's no doubt. Is there anyone better available? Probably not and that's just as depressing.
I pray this is not our last signing

Re: Flannery re-signs : Tue Jul 12, 2011 5:23 pm  

Honestly as a 2nd rower behind soliola and Wilkin, this gives us a good player on the bench and cover for injury.

Re: Flannery re-signs : Tue Jul 12, 2011 5:27 pm  

Who did people want in the 2nd row? Steve Menzies is the only other guy I can think of whose been available recently and mbe it's no accident we have announced this after he announced he was staying at le cats

Re: Flannery re-signs : Tue Jul 12, 2011 5:38 pm  

Flannery is a good re-signing because we're already losing some experienced players, we can't afford to lopse 5 or 6 of them in one go, we've been doing that for too long.

Our squad has been decreasing by experience and quality since 2006. We've probably replaced half of those that have left with youngsters filling the other spots. The last couple of seasons it's come to the point where after our starting 17, we look so light in terms of star quality. In comparison to Warrington and Wigan our squad is lightyears behind. They have 20 - 22 uality players who they can feel comfortable rotating and rely on. If we lost Graham or Pryce or Roby or even Meli, we'd struggle because we don't have the depth and quality to replace. I think we're 2 or 3 experienced players short. I do admire our strategy of giving youth a chance, but they're not physically mature enough to play every week at such a consistent level. You need to have a balance and with our luck with injuries, those youngsters would still get a chance.

Re: Flannery re-signs : Tue Jul 12, 2011 8:36 pm  

Dux wrote:

What would you suggest as an alternative? We can't sign any NRL players and I don't see any better back rowers coming through our youth system or being available domestically. He's a solid and versatile player who brings significant experience to an increasingly youthful squad.

1. Why can't we sign any NRL players?
2. Better young players for example like Chris hill who we didn't sign and Jake Emmet who we let go. I know they are props but with TP still with us he could easily switch to 2nd row.
3. Flanners is pants and has been since he joined us as a rather poor replacement for hopperman. Our quota places are very precious so why waste them on a "second rate aussie".
4. I'd rather have vinnie anderson back from dire now he's on a free and off quota.

Re: Flannery re-signs : Tue Jul 12, 2011 8:49 pm  

saint at wire wrote:

1. Why can't we sign any NRL players?
2. Better young players for example like Chris hill who we didn't sign and Jake Emmet who we let go. I know they are props but with TP still with us he could easily switch to 2nd row.
3. Flanners is pants and has been since he joined us as a rather poor replacement for hopperman. Our quota places are very precious so why waste them on a "second rate aussie".
4. I'd rather have vinnie anderson back from dire now he's on a free and off quota.

We can't sign Nrl players as the quota is full. Flannery is off the quota so won't take a overseas spot.

I don't think flannery is the greatest of players but if the is nothing else out there to replace him then I'd rather have him than not.

One things for sure, he's ten times better than ashurst and Dixon.

Re: Flannery re-signs : Tue Jul 12, 2011 8:53 pm  

saint at wire wrote:

1. Why can't we sign any NRL players?
2. Better young players for example like Chris hill who we didn't sign and Jake Emmet who we let go. I know they are props but with TP still with us he could easily switch to 2nd row.
3. Flanners is pants and has been since he joined us as a rather poor replacement for hopperman. Our quota places are very precious so why waste them on a "second rate aussie".
4. I'd rather have vinnie anderson back from dire now he's on a free and off quota.

1. Because we're up to our limit of non-federation players.
2. I would have liked us to sign Chris Hill, but there's every possibility he preferred the option of going to Wire. Same with Emmit - he was offered a wage elsewhere that we couldn't possibly justify matching.
3. We disagree on Flannery. He's no flash Harry, but no way is he pants. Regarding quota spaces, Flannery doesn't count as non-federation, as he's been here since before 2008. This is precisely why we've retained him. If he had left we wouldn't have been able to bring in an NRL player to take his place.
4. Vinnie Anderson is at Salford. Louis Anderson would seem to have agreed terms with Catalans.

Re: Flannery re-signs : Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:33 pm  

Dux wrote:

1. Because we're up to our limit of non-federation players.
2. I would have liked us to sign Chris Hill, but there's every possibility he preferred the option of going to Wire. Same with Emmit - he was offered a wage elsewhere that we couldn't possibly justify matching.
3. We disagree on Flannery. He's no flash Harry, but no way is he pants. Regarding quota spaces, Flannery doesn't count as non-federation, as he's been here since before 2008. This is precisely why we've retained him. If he had left we wouldn't have been able to bring in an NRL player to take his place.
4. Vinnie Anderson is at Salford. Louis Anderson would seem to have agreed terms with Catalans.

Points taken.
I meant to sat Louis.