My take on this is that there will be an agreement for Gaskell to move to Salford permanently for a few quid from the Doc, and we've decided they may as well throw in a squad player while they're at it since we're lacking cover at hooker.

We've seen the last of Gaskell I reckon.

Nothing like it - Lunt is a decent hooker, Howarth isn't. Simple

I don't get where this idea of Gaskell being 'amazing' has come from.

He's not done anything under 3 coaches since 2011 and 2 of them didn't pick him. You'd have to ask why that is.

He's been underwhelming since 2011 I agree - but would you rather see him or Charnock/Wellens run out with 6 on their back at the DW tomorrow . . . . .

you obviously dont know what happened and the whole scenario

cant see the same happening where you win the grand final though

I'd take Lunt in a flash!

Fair to assume that Brown thinks the latter.

As a supporter we can judge in hindsight after the game tomorrow whether the right decision was made.

Howarths not a 9. His preferred position was 6 or 13 for Wakey and is not as bad a player as made out , A change of club may give him a lift and playing alongside a better squad will give him more opportunities to show his ball playing skills .
Veivers ran him as interchange 9 , with Godwin being injured for alot of last season . now he's 3rd choice behind Godwin & Gareth Owen . we are in desperate need of a stand off after Holdsworth leaving.
Howarth had a couple of ' run ins ' with Salford fans after bad losses so this didn't endear him to the more vocal amongst the support .
Lee Gaskell , I remember him ripping us to shreds at the Willows a couple of seasons ago and Gaskell/Lomax was going to be the Saints half-back Partnership for years to come. what happened >? he was non too pleased being palmed out to Hornets a week or two back .

anyway good luck to both

It's nice to see a balanced opinion about the lad.

Well, no surprise to me that Gaskell has gone to Salford. I did say he wouldn't play for Saints again and I did say he was out of favour. He's been treated poorly by Saints but at least now he is at a club where he will get a chance to play each week and will also be under the guidance of one of the best halfbacks ever to grace our game. Given that he's out of contract at the end of the season I can see this being a permanent move which, with Koukash around and the possibility of at least one quality coach being brought on board at Salford, he may well be happy to take.

I love the way Saints keep on developing their local young players.

And given Brown's decision to send Lunt out on loan to Leeds to faciitate his beloved Scott Moore, I don't have a lot of faith in Brown's judgment.

Me too, I mean we have blooded 6 kids this season already.

That isn't developing them; it's covering for injuries. We've always done that.

Who was injured for Greenwood, Percival and Walker to get game time this season?

There's a reason Gaskell suddenly dropped from favour and he probably wouldn't have played again this season so it makes sense to swap for somebody else who may play.

Admittedly, I would have liked somebody with a better rep than Howarth but lets give the lad a chance before writing him off.

I just hope Howarth has a blinder if he plays tomorrow and proves everybody wrong. A change of club etc might work well for him as with Gaskell too. Gaskell is out of contract at the end of the season so I can't see him coming back to us. A shame really as he never fulfilled his potential while with us.

We could easily have played Flanagan hooker last week (instead of Speakman or Ashe).

We could equally as easily have played Turner at 6 instead of Charnock, moving Meli to centre.

Then there's Greenwood, Walker, Percival.

Fact is, Brown has taken lots of opportunities to blood kids. They're just the "wrong" kids for some people.

Don't let facts get in the way of a good SaintsFan rant!

Yeah: the coach. The same coach who shipped out a grand final winning hooker while at Hudds so he could have Scott Moore back. A coach I am trusting less with each passing week.

We could, but I didn't suggest Brown wanted to shunt the whole team around. I suggested that he was covering for injuries. Had those injuries not occurred, those young players would not have been blooded.

And incidentally, I liked the idea of Speakman at hooker. That is a young local hooker being given his debut covering for our injured hooker. That's exactly how cover should be: a player in that position covering for an injured player in the same position. However, that is very different from player development, which is what was mentioned. For and example of the approach I go for in player development, see Smith's handling of Myler at Warrington. That is phasing a player into the team, not just dropping them in when injuries occur.

We have just brought in a hooker from Salford. So will we see Speakman again this year? Maybe if Howarth is injured during Robes' absence but otherwise I doubt it very much.

Incorrect, please try again.

Scott Moore is a talented player, it was never his ability in doubt. Don't forget he was named in the dream team in 2009 ahead of a few talented hookers. That's also the year he played under NB.

Brown saw that and tried the chance to turn him around but that didn't work out. He now appears to have sorted himself out and starts for Gold Coast.

Not incorrect. Brown sent Lunt out on loan to Leeds to facilitate re-signing Scott Moore. That is factually correct. What is incorrect about that?

I made no comment about Scott Moore's talent or otherwise.

Let's just face it - Gaskell was never as good as some numpties thought he was to begin with. He was extremely raw and limited when he first came into the team and hasn't improved an awful lot since (for whatever reason) - if anything he's gone considerably backwards now opposition defences know about him. Brown's had a good look at him and come to the same conclusion. He won't be at Saints next season and only time will tell if that is a good thing or not, but all the evidence to date suggests that it probably will be for all concerned. When we are so desperate for halves, the fact that 2 successive coaches (even if one of them was Rush) have decided that he isn't up to the job with so few other alternatives available says everything that needs saying. Add him to the same "initial promise unfulfilled" pile as Foster and move on.

Sorry my bad I wasn't clear. The incorrect was to do with the reason Gaskell has gone.

The coach? So our coaches don't decide who goes out on loan then? Who does? The chairman? Mike Rush? Who?

The reason Gaskell's gone is that he just isn't good enough. Simple.