But I'm still not seeing your point. Why should the signing of a new centre only be looked at for the short term in order to wait for Crooks? We should go out and sign the best centre we think we can get for the best deal, if that happens to be a potentially long-term player for us that's so much the better IMO. It's then up to Crooks to force his way in.



It should also be remembered that a couple of years down the line Yeaman will be into his 30s, so having a couple of young centres in the squad will hardly be a problem.

I agree with you Carl, we should sign the best centre we possibly can, and not just sign someone and wait 2 years for Crooks to take their place. Sign the best you can and at a good age and let Crooks force his way into the team.

I said I would rather sign a better centre (than Arundel) in the short term THAN sign Arundel long term when IMO Crooks has the more potential. Obviously if we could sign someone like Kallum Watkins then it would be a lot different.

Yeaman has 6 years at least in him yet.

But Arundel's not that good. That's the point, I'd rather sign better short term and develop Crooks, who has more potential.

Unless a really top class young centre came along.

Perhaps I didn't explain myself that well. I'm not bothered about signing Arundel at all. If we had the chance to sign another top class centre who was young then of course you would even if they was only a year or two older than Crooks. You would then hope that Crooks pushes and shows that he shoud be having a starting spot in the team.

You initially said what would it mean for Crooks, which I said no different to signing any other centre. Just because Arundel is 2 years older than Crooks doesn't mean that we'd somehow be forced to leave Crooks out any more than if we signed someone who was 30.



At the end of the day, yes Crooks looks to have potential, but how many players has that been true of and they haven't delivered and then we've been left short. Far better to sign another player with potential and possibly have a decision to make than to bank on Crooks and be left with a problem in a couple of years if he doesn't cut the mustard.



If you don't think Arundel is any good that's a different point, and I still don't really see how it has any bearing on Crooks. If he proves good enough he'll get in the team.

That point I can understand. But maybe our coaching staff don't think there are better options out there at sensible prices.

You do know J.Arundel is only 20 don't you ?

He's only 20 and also part of the Knights set up, Macnamara and Gentle must see him as right centre who can defend,

Crooks seems to me to be a classy left attacking centre who could replace Yeaman if/when he moves to second row,

I like Arundel but I do worry about what it means for Crooks. Sign a quality centre for two years and play him with Yeaman with Crooks backing up seems fine. However Arundel is a longer term signing so it may block Crooks path?

Can't see it Paul.



If Arundel and Yeaman were our starting centres they'd end up missing a few games throughout the season giving Crooks a few games for a season or 2.

Having not seen Crookes I am not in a position to comment on his potential. I get the feeling that Gentle is a coach who will not play players when injured / not 100% fit. If Arundal (or Turner) and Yeaman are to be first choice Centres next season and Crookes is ready for fist team action he will get his chances.

I'm still not getting this, somebody's going to have to explain it to me properly. If Crooks turns out to be as good as people are bigging him up to be, why exactly would we still not pick him and block his progression? If somebody keeps him out it's because they are the better player, and I again don't see the problem.



There's an argument that there may not be much point in signing someone like Arundel if Crooks is considered a better prospect, but I just don't understand this fear that he'd block Crooks' path even if he's not as good just because he's 2 years older. And if it turned out even better and they both looked the business, then it would be up to Yeaman to fight them off to keep his place, there's no rule saying that they couldn't both play.



If players are good enough, they'll play.

My point is our right side has looked better with an experienced centre. Arundel might change that, so if we are going to take a risk why not play our own youngster? Maybe Crooks is nowhere near ready?



Why sign another youngster rather than play our own? Maybe Arundel is that good...I've seen glimpses but he's nothing that special right now.



Not knocking the potential signing as I like him just asking questions, it is allowed!

To be fair, on the Ellis thread, Arundal was called on Thursday. Admittedly no fee was mentioned then.

Exactly, when was the last time both centres played every game of the season? I remember back to when we had Eagar and he got injured in his first season, by the time he got fit he couldn't dislodge Yeaman from the left side, and then again in 2005 when he regained fitness he couldn't even claim a place at all past Yeaman and Whiting. There's no reason Crooks couldn't do similar, and just because Arundel (still a big IF about this anyway, but just for arguments' sake) could potentially play for us for a few years, doesn't mean we're obliged to let him if we find we don't need him.



I'd sooner have 2 young centres competing with each other to drive them on to improve than put all our money on one who might not make it. It would only be even more sensible to have somebody who has played a bit of right centre about the place too, to balance out all of the left-sided players we have.

I'm not saying you can't ask questions, I'm just saying I really don't understand the question being asked. Like I said, I could understand if people were asking what the point in signing him would be if they think Crooks looks better, but I just don't see why signing Arundel would stunt Crooks' development.

At the game and the Bloke next to me claims to be joe arundals neighbour, says he has signed 4 yr deal from next season, no fee (but compo for age) but he needs a shoulder op!

Well he is suppose to be out with shoulder injuryinjury

No more on the Arundal "signing " then..

Tom Burgess (Bulls), Sia Soliola (Saints) and Mike Cooper (Wire) are all out of contract in 2012. All would be good signings and would strengthen the areas that we need to strengthen (Soliola as a right-centre, Cooper or Burgess for Prop).

All are good ages, too (19,25,23 respectively).



Opinions on these guys?

Not overly convinced by Soliola as a centre, personally, looks better when he plays in the pack IMO. Is Burgess staying in SL or is he another heading off to Souths?

Soliola was one of Saints' stand-out players when we played then a couple weeks ago, along with Puletua, but based on who I know is OOC at the end of the current season he seems the best option available, even if he probably is better in the back row.



Not sure about Burgess, I thought that he'd said that he'd turned Souths down because he wanted to establish a name for himself in SL? Can understand why he'd go if they offer him again, though.

But again, I thought Soliola played in the pack against us. Hasn't it been Meli at centre with Foster on the wing most of this season?

According to the Rovers Board, they have several World Beaters coming through their ranks and Scott Taylor won Man of Steel on today's performance alone.



Apparently, Taylor is a lifelong Hull fan and therefore some of their fans are expecting us to come calling soon. Anyone rate him and if so is there any truth in his allegiance to Hull?



In Rovers defence, one of their fans does point out that Paul Cooke was a lifelong Rovers fan, but played for Hull! They forgot to mention the transfer.