I'd be very very happy with Burns. IMO he's a top super league player. He plays the game hard and very skilful clever player. He'd certainly be my number one target for 2015 with a good prop. That's my two priority positions I think we need.

Burns would be a very competent replacement to hohaia (assuming he is going, and wheeler too) - my concern is having to pay a transfer fee for him. I can't help but feel there would be better options to go for, if transfer fees come into play. Until it's announced hohaia and wheeler are going, the top priority should be backrow and prop.

I'd pay a fee for Burns. He looks the sort that will have no problems to settle at all.

Who are the better options ?

For me, if were paying transfer fees/ player swaps - then the obvious is Sneyd - he could be groomed with Walsh for a few years before taking over the reigns. (I genuinely believe a sob story returning jordan turner to his home town club England knights international saints player of the season, would move koukash's stubborn position!) the other transfer fee option would be ratchford, who whilst may automatically written off, might be available at the right price given the talk in Warrington of the halfback over haul, and would compliment Walsh really well with his running game.

Failing that, and moving away from transfer fees, I reckon jordan rankin at hull could be worth a punt - rumour has it he will be victim to the mass clear out, and I think has suffered from hullitus - aka not being used as effectively as he could be. Strong runner and done a decent job from what I've seen (albeit limited)

I'd take Burns over Sneyd every day of the week. Burns is a proven super league player with that aggression and fire we are missing. People don't see past his "dirty" player tag but he's a very clever player.

I'd have ratchford without a shadow of a doubt but it will take a big big fee to get him and we won't pay big money for anyone.

So Burns and Hampshire are nailed on? Where's Hampshire gonna play then?

I don't think they are. I know we won't Burns and not sure how that's gone but heard nothing on Hampshire at all. Hasn't Hampshire just signed a new deal ?

Depends what Warrington have planned for their halfback clear out

he's never really nailed down his position so if a reasonable offer came along at a time when they need cap space to pull off whatever audacious plan is supposedly in place you never know.

Sneyd has a key advantage over burns in time. He's not as complete a player yet as burns granted, but I think he a) has the potential to be international class and b) complements Walsh a lot better - there's a potential that burns and Walsh will clash as both try and control the team.

Rankin could be the next hooper with the right coaching, the exact type of player were missing from our squad...

I agree with the time on his side regarding Sneyd but we need a stand off now! We've gone far to long with a mock up halfback pairing and that's been the real big reason we've won nothing.

To be honest it's shocking we've played so long with one or no halfbacks that are out and out halves. We've now got whàt I believe to be the best 7 in super league but we can't just rely on him all time and messing about with the 6 every week doesn't help Walsh or the team.

This year we've had wello, Wilkin, Wheeler and lance play 6. Last year we had GOB, Wilkin, wello, wheeler, lomax, Gaskell and Turner all play 6. That's not good at all.

Wigan have two settled halves in smith and green. Leeds have had Sinfield and McGuire. Warrington had briers and Myler and those teams win things.

Warrington look a shadow of the team from last year now and that's due to disruption in the halves. The successful saints teams of the past always had to good halves.

We need a proven quality 6 to play with Walash.

Oh I agree, but having a fully fledged, peaking 6 now means 2/3 years down the road well be in the same position with Walsh moving on and burns on a downward slope. Sneyd is already better that what we have now as a 6, and can be our long term 7 if Walsh moves on. It's all about stability as you say, and buying in a 30 year old only postpones it temporarily. That's fine, but for a fee I'd like a little more stability.

Burns will give us 3 good years easy.

I think you add Burns to this current team and a good tough rough prop and youd see a massive difference. Aggressive players like Burns bring out the aggression in other players and we wouldn't be a walk over as we have been in tough games.

Burns for 3 years gives us plenty of time to find a a younger halfback or produce one of our own.

Burns for Hohaia

Aston Simms for laffranchi

Tariq Simms for Manu/sia

I beeline we'd win things with the above transfers

Trying to get an available proven half back is like dragons teeth these days, can,t see any team willing to release one unless there is a big financial gain.
It might be easier to sign up and develop Eden,s defensive game at full back and get Lomax working at 6 with Walsh.

I think we'd miss lomax at fullback tbh. He's vital in the way we play as he comes in wide as a extra half or can also take the line on. Lomax isn't the greatest of halves IMO and the extra room he gets at fullback really fits his game. He become very predictable at 6 with his dummy and step inside and also stopped the ball going wide.

Lomax is the perfect fullback for us.

I cannot see Wigan letting Hampshire go other than for a fee we would baulk at paying. I think you can confine this one to mischief making though I'd love to be wrong. Nobody I have spoken to, who are usually not far away with comings and goings, have heard anything about it.

Burns I don't know anything about apart from our initial interest and it all appears to be very quiet on the incomings front whilst the 'Walsh home' rumours won't go away.

But, supposing you have 3 years from burns that is, at a minimum:

Hohaia/ Walsh this year
Burns/ Walsh next year
Burns/ new 7 the year after (potentially)
New 6/ new 7 2 years after that

Which can hardly be described as stable! If Walsh stays longer than his initial contract, it becomes much less of an issue. But I'd just love us to have a halfback combo we can keep together for 5+ years!

Walsh was always going after two seasons tho, it's not a shock. We need to look at the hear and now.

The is lack of good proven halves about and Burns is a player we a capable of getting IMO. It's all well and good looking 3 years down the line but I'm looking for a stable halves from week to week.

So at it's bluntest, Walsh is a stop gap for us to get some long term halfbacks in place!

This is all conjecture of course, who knows what saints plan is

but brown generally does very well identifying halfbacks, so we shall see!

Extrapolating on what our CEO said recently I would imagine Walsh is effectively a stop gap until we can raise our own rather than get any in. I've no idea whether there are any up and coming halfbacks at Saints these days. We seem to have disposed of them all.

There are 2 who seem to crop up more than any other:

Charnock, who seems to be moved and getting groomed for a ball handling 13 rather than a halfback; and

Hewitt, whose 17 - was picked for the England game recently vs France, but I'd hazard a guess he's still going to be too young to get a game any time soon...

When a player signs a two year deal it's always a chance he won't stay longer but if we get two good years out of Walsh then it's better than nothing.

Put it this way, I'd have him for two years than having Wilkin there. The should always be a long term plan but also short term as they sometimes the only option.

If Walsh and Burns play together next year and we have a good season but Walsh them leaves then it worked.

Oh don't get me wrong, signing Walsh was great, 2 years or not.

Ultimately 6. Burns 7. Walsh, or any other player mentioned in the last few pages are steps in the right direction, given the options we had over the last few years. It's only personal preference to bring someone in to build our structures around!

I think the idea of keeping anyone who's got genuine NRL quality will be difficult to do for long periods.
I know E Mc mentioned something about Penrith still contributing to his wages, this may be how we've managed to get him under the cap and once this agreement come to an end, we may not be able to afford to keep him.
However, I'm not 100% sure about that situation and if Walsh settles here, with the lack of media spotlight, we may be able to tie him down for longer.

It's like that with any overseas players. If they settle, if they play well, if they been a success, if they win things, if they get another shot at NRL etc

The fact Walsh made comment that he had a get out Clause (true or not) suggests he wasn't totally convinced on coming. The is clearly some strong rumours which the club denied that he's not settled which ain't going away it seems.

I've spoke to players at the club about this and I'd like to think he would see his two years out but all depends on how his family get on between now and the end of the season.

I know Walsh IS happy to stay and enjoying it but that doesn't mean he will stay.

Yeah definitely - he'll be lining up with his current team mates and fellow departees James Green and Jordan Cox.

Oh hang on...

Either that or he wanted a safety net in case it all went wrong. It was a big step for him and his wife to come over here without ever having set foot in the country when they have family, friends, etc back home, and it's always tougher for the partners because they don't have the network in place that the men do to meet people and get to know the ropes of living here. But only time will tell if he stays for the length of his contract. I'm taking no notice of the rumours anymore. He'll be here for this season anyway and so I'll enjoy having him with us until I hear anything different from the club.