Nothing against Thompson as he has gone well in his first two. But is he physical enough to play prop? BTW would at least go and put himself about.

If I was picking it would be:

Shaul
Lineham
Crooks
Arundel
Talanoa
Rankin
Horne
Paea
Houghton
Bowden
Ellis
Whiting
Westerman

Heremaia
Thompson
Feka
Tyson-Wilson

6,2 -100kgs
Slight for my liking but did ok against st's, put himself about a bit.
Slightly bigger than Pitts I recon.

Yeah, That won't be too far wrong although I have a feeling Yeaman will come straight back in.

I'm not talking about size as such. I'm just not sure he's the enforcer type. He's more likely to put in a good step than a big shoulder.

Which one will drop out? Crooks or Arundel

For me Crooks needs a kick up the backside.

Can't see him dropping Crooks but I agree will Ellam he needs a kick up the .

I would have thought Pitts will be coming in, but as a backrower with Thompson at prop judging by Radford's comments.

I don't think the club wants Pitts on the salary cap so he won't play. I reckon he'll be released before he plays a game this season.

Beat me to it - along with McDonnell and possibly Miller.

Would seem to be a bit of cutting our nose off to spite our face though, IMO. I'm all for promoting youth, but going with Hadley or Kent over a much more experienced and apparently in form player seems a bit silly. Only way we shouldn't be going with Pitts is if we bring in Tyson-Wilson as a prop-for-prop replacement.

Who is all this free cap space for?

Can't see that playing these players would take us over with what we have or else the live cap would have prevented us bringing in Carvell and Colbon, and not playing players when we need to to possibly engineer a bit of cap space would be stupid unless we have somebody lined up now.

Spot on his defence looks poor at the minute.

Easy to think that way with the evidence available. Who knows.

I think most on here would have expected Carvell's signing to have pushed us very close or over the top,
especially as his Salary Cap Value couldn't go down this year.
The only way I can see this working is if Pitts was never registered on (or was removed from) the Cap.
I don't know if this is possible, but I can't see any reference in the rules to players who don't actually play any games in the Cap year.

Let's hope Motu understands what's going on.

wonder when miller will get some game time?.this is when you need an ateam.gives players like miller match practice.

AS poor as Crooks has been in defence (same could be said for Lineham) I would stick with him, he still offers so much in attack and is some a natural try scorer. I think he could cause Atkins some problems on Sunday.

Arudel also has issues with his defence and has no where near the threat of Crooks, Yeaman should come in for him as he impressed in the first game.

There's got to be something, though. Even by RFL standards it would be a monumentally stupid loophole to be able to sign up new players over and above the salary cap limit on the strength of saying 'oh, these other players won't play this year, promise'. The answer in such a circumstance would/should just be 'well pay them off/release them, then.' Pitts is in his last year, if we've engineered a situation where he [ican't[/i play for us (like if he's not registered for us), why wouldn't we just pay up his contract? What point is there in him being kept around?

The obvious answer is that another club might pay us to release him from his contact.
Next best would be to "agree terms" with him once he's found another club.
The most expensive solution is to pay him off.

I agree with you. Pitts has been playing very well for Donny. Thompson has played well so far too but he's not a prop whereas Pitts has experience of playing prop. The obvious explanation for not playing Pitts is so we can release him without him counting on the cap.

He's been included in the 19 for Sunday. I think he'll play.

How much will a transfer for him realistically be?

And agreeing terms with him finding a club is essentially what I mean. If we have no intention/ability to play him, this should/would have been done already, IMO.

I just struggle to subscribe to the new conspiracy theory that we have players who will all not play to stop them going on the cap. Not when we could pay them off to clear the decks and we have already seen evidence that Pearson will do this to get rid of players where required. If they're here and taking a wage, they must be available for selection (particularly if they're being named in the 19 like Miller). The only one I find believable is McDonnell.

With Pitts in particular there are just too many other factors that wouldn't make sense:

1) Why would we have him on dual reg at Doncaster instead of asking them to give somebody we do want (like Tyson-Wilson) the valuable game time/experience?
2) Why would we also risk him getting injured which would then give us all of his recuperation/physiotherapy etc to deal with?
3) Why would we have our coach complimenting him on how well he's done in preseason and then for Doncaster if he doesn't rate him and/or wants rid? There'd be no point, and he'd probably feel no need to mention it.

I don't see why we would be doing this just to save/gain a few grand. Especially when 2) could possibly negate that.

Could be about to be academic anyway, he's in the squad.

Hopefully you're right. He will make the 17 and Miller and Arundel (assuming Yeaman is fit) will miss out.

However if you're wrong the bench will consist of one prop (Feka), Thompson, Heremaia and a centre or half back.

That's why I think he'll be in the 17. I don't think there's much point in putting a centre and a half back on the bench. Especially when we have players like Whiting who can do a job at centre and Heremeia who can play half back if necessary.