[url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-307082/Fallen-Saints-hit-bans-bet-scandal.htmlCracking role model, just what we need[/url

A 5 year old article really is clutching at straws mate.

Don't be so self righteous

it's an indication of the measure of the man.

Anyway, I am sure he'll be fine once Agar has got his hands on him.

Wanna clutch those straws a little harder?

FFS, you moan we haven't had a proper 7 for years and then we sign we and you still moan.

No, we sign one who has his best years behind him and wasn't deemed good enough to be retained by Saints.

It's no wonder Hull is the way it is, no bloody ambition.

Deary me.

As a rugby player and what he has won he is second to none. His coaching of the younger players at the club, particularly the halfbacks will be massive and I hope he stays on longer than his initial two years in a fulltime coaching capacity.

Wrong!

Really! (see, putting an exclamation mark at the end doesn't make it true)

We probably offered more cash a longer deal, which is typical FC.

It was Long or Thurston apparently but despite Thurston getting on a plane and flying over here for an 11th hour summit with "the privately educated to55er" where he pleaded to be given the no. 34 shirt, "the privately educated to55er" said we always go for the cheap option and besides this will wind that Standee bloke up more. The rest is history.

You are still wrong, Saints deemed him good enough for a one year deal, ala Cunningham. He wanted a two year deal and that is where Hull came in.

Exclamation mark or not I am RIGHT.

That simply isn't true, as a number of people have now pointed out. Why do you keep saying it?

Do you really need to ask, you know Standee is always right no matter what.

Sean Long is still an integral part of the Saints side this year, a Saints side that is streets no towns ahead of us.

He was good enough for ONE YEAR, we offered him two, look at the records of the clubs, Saints know how to do business.

Think what you like, he's a half decent player with more talent stood on one leg than anyone in an FC shirt recently, still doesn't mean he was the right option.

Some people are less permeable. I have this with my three year old daughter, but if you tell her enough times (parrot fashion) it eventually absorbs. We just need to be more charitable and supportive towards him

The reasons behind the one year offer have been explained as well. Nothing to do with his age or talent as such, everything to do with bringing youth through.

The fact that it's good business for Saints doesn't make it bad business for us.

And if he was the wrong option for us, what - realistically - was the right one?

Thacks on his way out, Kingy being payed off, Reece Lynne (sp?) getting a full time contract and jury still out on Moa. Not gospel but heard second hand from a current player.

By that logic, Cunningham has only had one year left in him for the past 2 or 3. It's unfortunate for you, but the situation isn't as you'd like it to be so that you can further criticise the club.

Don't know why anyone is complaining about Long. He is still the best British scrum half in the game. Brilliant signing!

Correct, and until Eastmond got that winning try on Friday v Wigan, the pundits were saying how much Saints were missing him

longy will be an excellent signing,combining playing and coaching.rich horne will be a different player next season,hopefully,as he will be alongside a playmaker(aka cooke).his experience along with that of fitzgibbon,o'meley coming in will be invaluable to the squad.

No not IMO, currently the best British scrum half has to be Rob Burrow?!

don't agree burrow is not the organiser in that leeds team like long is for saints. sinfield is the organiser at leeds.

burrow is more of a finisher IMO and always has been. Not saying he is not a good player though

Sinfield does most of the work for him IMO.

id go with that.