Quote ="Scarlet Pimpernell"The question is not why we have not resigned Hampshire but why did we give a 35 year old scrum half a two year deal. I guess the logical idea would be one year to assess his game now but by giving him two we basically sacrificed Hampshire because we have put our faith in Brough. This was further confirmed by the comments from Chester praising his performance at Hull KR whilst never questioning his shocking efforts in the losing run.
I believe many on here questioned the length of the contract at the time it was announced. I think at 36/37 you need cover if he is to be your starter and also be willing to drop him if performances drop, but if you go into the season with no obvious scrum half replacement it is Brough or now we have no Hampshire who?'"
You seem to have a big problem with Brough and his age, whilst I accept we need cover for half backs Hampshire is not the answer, for whom you seem to have a love in, if coaches Wane and Powell didn’t rate him in that position but I suppose you know better. I agree that Brough went through a bad patch but was no different to other “younger” players during that time. As we don’t know who is yet to sign, we may be yet to sign cover for these positions.
I did think it was over tbf, not very often you see this type of U-Turn when it was already announced by the club that he had been released.
you've opened another can of worms
