This is it. We have no idea what money each player is pulling down. So saying Flannery is not worth it. How do we know. He is now a back up second rower. He will not even be a first choice sub next year. I dont know many clubs who can boast a forward of Flannerys quality outside the top 17.Meli is a gamble I would say until the last 20 minutes of thisyear he was a gamble that was paying off.

If anything Leeds reckonised his weakness on the wing royce did not. With hindsight foster should have been left with foster and Wheeler should have moved over to the other centre and drop lomax to fb.

But back on point

Next years line up for me.

Lomax
Makinson
Shenton
Wheeler
Foster

Lance
Gaskell

Perry
Roby
TP
Sia
Wilkin
Laffranchi

Clough
LMS
Megenis
Flanaghan

Wellens
Dixon
Flannery
Meli

If we need a back on the bench Wellens would be it for mine. Can cover all positions and do a stint in the back row.

No problem having a club captain. As and on pitch captain I think Wilkin or maybe an assuie like Lafranchi or Lance. Some one who will not hold their fire and be able to control a side. Some one who can close out a big game and make decisions without looking to the stand.

We will have strength in depth and 5props with Lafranchi offering a sixth and Sia a seventh. WithDixon and flannery and Flanaghan offering a good back rowers role.

Perhaps the fact that you've been the nearly men of SL for a while know has cost you the club being ruthless. The fact that your still challenging highly on all fronts is the reason why these tough decisions haven't been made.

Had Saints gone through a real lean patch, where you didn't challenge for honors, or maybe even struggled to make the top. The tough decisions would have been made IMO. But it's because your in between those two scenario's. Your challenging for titles but not winning them, yet your not struggling what so ever to make the top 4. Tough decisions tend to be made in tough times, something Saints aren't really going through. Maybe you need to hit more rock bottom before theses tough decisions are forced upon those in charge.

It's an incontrovertible argument from final consequences (a logical fallacy). But little else.



I've played this game before and it's wearisome. I name a player - say Ratchford - and you just claim he isn't a realistic proposal (despite the fact that you have no idea whether Saints can afford him or not).



With all the straw men knocking about in this thread we'd best be careful someone doesn't drop a match. If labeling Francis Meli a defensive liability who has been directly responsible for THREE grand final defeats is "abusive" then we might as well give up critical debate. Moreover, at no point have I suggested we need the services of a Newlove, Joynt or other player of such caliber. It's easy to debate when you respond to words you've put into someone else's mouth. It's much harder when ventriloquism isn't allowed.

What strawmen would they be? I wasn't suggesting you were insisting on finding players of that quality as a priority in the slightest - you are however insisting on us finding players better than what we currently have - players that just simply do not exist. The strawmen it seems are gaily dancing around in your cornfield and not mine....

People who know a thousand times more than everyone else on this thread put together about the state of the league, our salary cap situation, player availability and the strengths/weaknesses of what we have available have decided that the players we have resigned are the best options available right now. Why do you think that you know any better than them, particularly given that, a half-back who is off to the bottomless salary cap at the Flatpack aside, you can seemingly name no other realistic targets? I am no fan of Gardner or Flannery by any manner of means believe you me, and I've wanted to brutally murder Meli on as many different occasions in the past as anyone else has, but the fact remains that there sadly just isn't anyone else better available right now.

Totally agree with Northampton saint.

Me too, guess we are straw men then?

Yep it looks that way

Don't exist? Have you arrived at this conclusion via some hitherto undiscovered mathematical proof - or an act of divination? Perhaps I should have used the word wicker rather than straw?

As stated, your argument is a logical fallacy. The fact that Saints have chosen to re-sign Meli is NOT proof he is the best player around. At the very least it denies the possibility of making a mistake.



That's a bull copout and you know it. Let's look at reality here. None of us know how much Saints have to spend on players. That said, McManus has repeatedly stated that we are spending up to the cap. Now, we can debate this until the cows come home [ibut the fact that McManus has said it is incontrovertible[/i. If we accept this at face value then no player (outside of the NRL's top stars) is off limits. After all, other clubs cannot spend more than us.



You keep talking about facts and 100% certainties without supplying any at all. And the suggestion that there hasn't been a single player in the past five years who is capable of performing well in a Saints shirt (over Meli and Gardner) is laughable. We could have gone for Ratchford. We could have gone for Westerman. Hell, at a push I might even have gone for Chris Bridge or Ryan Atkins.

Why would we be in for Ratchford when he would probably be a step down from what we already have?

You are correct - the fact that Saints may or may not have done anything is indeed proof of nothing. However, the fact that a cursory look up and down the Superleague, to any reasonable eye, finds absolutely no players available when the resignings were made any better however proves that Saints did do the correct thing.

Playing standards in SL are at an all-time low and there just aren't enough decent players to go around all the clubs that want them, particularly in the "skill" positions (to use an NFL phrase), so we all just have to make do and mend with the best players we can get hold of at any particular time. How many clubs now are having to play warmed-over 2nd rowers at centre as they can't find anyone better, just as we can't? It sucks but is a fact of life.

Because then we could have a hull style merry go round of players, let our "no hopers" go and fill the team with superstars from Salford and Wakefield. This would make some of the posters on this board happy, even of we did drop put of the top eight, at least we would have got rid of Gardner and meli

Proof to whom? Saints? Congratulations. I mean, even a serial killer will find some way to justify his actions. Objective proof - well, that's something else entirely. I'm wondering just how many logical fallacies you can fit into one post. First the argument from final consequences, then the straw man and finally the moth-eaten "No true Scotsman" retort ("to any [ireasonable[/i eye" etc.)

Which kind of sinks your argument. Not that you really had one in the first place.

Can you translate that into St Helens talk please?

[url=http://carm.org/logical-fallacies-or-fallacies-argumentationBy all means[/url.

I'm from parr mate, I'm struggling to understand any of your posts but I gather the main point is being highly negative and ripping the team to shreds to sign players that we can't afford or ain't available.

Where is the "logical fallacy" in us not being able to sign any better players because there simply are none available? Can you post a link to a condescending wiki page that lists some of these magical quality players we can go and bring in now to settle the debate one way or t'other?

Get back in your box you pleb

He's lost on me that mugwump guy.

It's a fallacy because any player I choose to list will fall foul of the "to any reasonable eye" backstop clause. From what I've seen of Ratchford he is quick enough, talented, British and - even more importantly - young. If he isn't showing Meli's best form for Salford that's [iprobably because he's playing for Salford[/i. But no matter what I say about Ratchford (or any other player for that matter) - it won't make a lick of difference because "any reasonable eye" can see he is not good enough.

It's an argument that cannot be won. You've loaded the game from the start.

First of all people havent loaded the game from the start,thats the way Saints work now,we cant pay fees so it has to be an out of contract player and they have to be same federation.

You have named Rachford and fair play most people on here agree with that one,but Who is to say we didnt look into Rachford ?Without knowing Saints wage structure we cant say if signing him was an option. I cant remember the timing of Warrington signing him was it before or after we signed players ? Anyway all clubs know who is coming of contract and will make offers acording to need and wage structures,Warrington offered him by all accounts a very good deal.

I agree that these contracts should be the last for Meli and Flanno ( provided there are better English players to replace them with ) I hope we are in the running to sign Welham when his deal runs out at HKR.

I bet Salford matched it , I imagine he went for the glory as much as the money. The mistakes been made anyway's giving Meli a 2 year deal was silly and means a move for someone like Ratchford would probably have been dependant on getting someone to pick up the last year of Meli's contract. For me giving Ade an extention after seeing Makinson perform so well was a waste of cap space.

You're right - no-one knows Saints' wage structure. But we [ido know[/i the chairman has repeatedly stated we are spending up to the cap. Again, those are HIS words - not mine. If we take them at face value we are as well placed to sign Ratchford as Warrington. They can't spend more than the cap just as we can't. Granted, we might have to offload a couple of players - but we certainly aren't talking beyond the realms of possibility.

We could look at poaching talent from other academies (other clubs have no problem with this), or - at a push - we could look at the lower leagues or even union (given sufficient time to develop). Not every player in the lower leagues is a certain failure and we have to remember that their form will increase in proportion to the surrounding talent. Hell, at this moment I'd settle for nothing less than a solid player. In the case of Meli we would lose some finishing power, but this would in no way make it impossible for us to reach the Grand Final (especially given the scoring potential of Lomax, Shenton, Foster, Wheeler and Gaskell). And if we did make the GF we might just profit from not fielding the greatest liability in the history of Grand Finals.



I can cope with Flannery. He doesn't make mistakes and, when fit, he offers a modest attacking threat. Meli is nothing more than a stuffed shirt. The Aussies figured him out years ago. The Saints fans did, too. Indeed, the only people who haven't are those running the club. I give McManus enormous credit for securing the new stadium. But over the last few years some of his recruitment decisions have been shaky to say the least. Meli's original extension was a joke. His defence was a mess and his attempts to do anything other than catch a high ball (in the most tragi-comic fashion imaginable) were shambolic. Couple this with our total disrespect toward the kicking discipline (which went on for three - perhaps four years) that cost us plenty.

In hindsight, yes.

Not really an excuse. Ade only got his deal late in the season (he signed it a few weeks ago).

I'm willing to take your word for it although I was under the impression he signed it a while ago. You can make an argument for Makinson's place in the starting line-up for sure, but Gardner was also in very good form (possibly career best) before being injured and on that form I have no problems with keeping him.