Also if u look at other positions as well like the lockyers and stacey jones there is a lot of players playing longer now. I agree alot of players wont be as good as they was went they was say mid twenties but some are still very good and do a Job. Look at fitz im sure he was much better in his twenties but he hasnt let us down in the 2 years he has been here.

Quote ="Tongan Mafia"Just for you to read www.nrl.com/golden-oldies-why-36 ... fault.aspx'" That's still the same examples of Civoniceva and Price, with a back now thrown in. The rest are still under 34, so let's see if Hindmarsh and Ryles make it past that yet.

Quote ="Tongan Mafia"Just for you to read www.nrl.com/golden-oldies-why-36 ... fault.aspx'" That's still the same examples of Civoniceva and Price, with a back now thrown in. The rest are still under 34, so let's see if Hindmarsh and Ryles make it past that yet.

I've said all along that the addition of Lynch would give us a good set of props for next year, I don't know why you keep reiterating the point, it's not in contention. My point is precisely that he will only last 2 years, so if he costs a decent fee we'll be overpaying, and we look like having a distinctly short-lived pack.

The way Agar has treated him I can hardly blame him

I agree he will probably last 2 years but I dont see a point in that. If our coach and Pearson cannot get younger props in 2 years then we will have a problem but I dont see them struggling. Plus Pearson will get the cheque book out if he needs to so im not worried that we will get just 2 years out of him.

Fitzgibbon lends himself more to my view than yours. Has done everything he can to keep himself in the best possible shape, but realises at 34 that his body has had enough.

Yes but he hasnt let anyone down has he ? He has still done a job for us and didnt we sign him and he played for us at 32 the same age Lynch will be?

My point is that Lynch could have two very good years left in him and if we can get them at fc I will be over the moon I for one am not bothered over his age. I would be more worried if it was a back as the older they get they lose there pace.

If I'm honest here, I think you're being pretty out of order to Pearson. You seem to see him as some sort of a sugar daddy and keep saying he'll just get the cheque book out, that's unappreciative, undervaluing, and dismissive of the potential risk he's taking to run our club. He's not here to splash money around left, right, and centre, nor is it in the best interests of the club long term. I'd sooner he left us operating as a self-sufficient entity and didn't go down the silly-spending route.

And I don't see why you think we'll attract props no problem. Last close season we were after new blood there and missed out on several on the market, bringing nobody new in in the end. That's why I'm worried, because British players are now more desirable to clubs, and we have a habit of missing out when it comes to hot properties on the market. Whether that was entirely due to the previous board's frugal nature avoiding bidding wars, I don't know, it just concerns me if we have a lot of rebuilding to do all at once.

Bloody ell, been busy on here tonight!

Lynch I would be happy with. A leader and a good prop in a team.
O'Carroll I'm not too sure about. Made of biscuit for a start, and why would Wigan get rid if he wasn't good enough? We'll see.

As for Bridge, he has really impressed me over the past couple of seasons, before that I thought he was an over-rated poser. Can't see him coming at all though.

And for the Gasnier, he's just played SOO ffs. Of corse he's still good enough. But another who won't be coming here.

Good to see hairy chests are back in. Unfortunately beer guts don't seem to be. Yet.

Seriously, please get this point, I'll put it in capitals and everything:

[size=150I AGREE THAT LYNCH WILL BE A GOOD SIGNING FOR US FOR 2 YEARS.[/size

Got that bit? Right, here's the next bit: IMO, if a player costs a significant transfer fee (i.e. 50k or more), he should have more than 2 years left in him or be one of the very best players in the world, otherwise you're basically paying £25k+ a year more than he's worth. It also coincides with nearly all of our pack being out of contract and around retirement age. Signing/developing a full pack in 2 close seasons is possibly giving us too difficult a challenge to achieve.



And yet the link you provided had more backs than forwards in it I believe.

So lets buy them before they are ooc then if they are that good if not then we will try and get them when they become ooc. Pearson is no idiot and I know he will only get the chequebook out if he can afford it. But he has already stated he isnt scared to get the cheque book out. We will need to buy players early doors because we are not an attractive prospect over the likes of a Wigan or Warrington. But if they see the team with quality in the squad and are competing and become a consistent top four club and get to finals then Pearson wont need to get the cheque book out as top players will want to play for Hull as they know that they would have a great chance in winning some trophys. The last few years its been come and play for Hull under Agar and the board not really an attractive proposition. People where writing off ogre when we signed him there isnt many calling him past it or injury prone now.

Yeah crazy that more backs play longer but hey ho...Yes I know u have said that Lynch will be good for 2 years so have I so dont really get the point tbh lol apart from im willing to pay to get him where you say its bad buisness to pay over 50 k for him. If pearson is willing to pay vast amounts of money for average footballers im sure he will be quite happy to pay peanuts for quality players.

1, It's not his money at City.
2, Football has a proper transfer market, so they can also sell players to recoup money.
3, Football has much more income to finance the spending.
4, In relative terms, they've spent very, very little for this season.

Don't recall anyone writing O'Meley off because of his age, I remember people being worried that we'd signed someone who hadn't yet recovered from knee surgery.

Sorry I thought Pearson owned city way back and sold it for a nice profit?

Pearson was also Head of the Stadium Management Company, which operates the KC Stadium, the home of Hull City and rugby league side Hull. But on 11 June 2007 at 12:00 midday, it was announced at a press conference broadcast live on BBC Radio Humberside that Pearson had sold the club and the SMC to a consortium consisting of Paul Duffen, Russell Bartlett and Martin Walker

Not a rumour, but what about Scott Moore?

Looks like being released by Saints (according to their board anyway) and is a pretty tough tackling back rower these days who can cover halves and hooker, effectively replacing and upgrading Washy.

Btw the Ben Ross rumour, no bloody thanks!

Pearson had a stake in City but was not the main money man. Right now Pearson has no stake whatsoever in City and none of what they are spending will be coming from his pocket.

We haven't suddenly become the Chelsea of RL and some of your ideas make absolutely no financial sense whatsoever. Pearson doesn't have a bottomless pit of cash to throw at player just because you happen to like them.

He has more then enough money for rugby league for him to go and get who he wants. He isnt an idiot he knows what he is doing all im saying is if he wants to he can get the cheque book out. Or do you think he is that poor that he would spend all that money getting fc and then not having decent amount of cash to take them the next step

I don't really think discussing the personal wealth of AP is relevant, he isn't the kind of person to pump money in for the sake of it.

Yes I agree with you and he isnt stupid but if he has to pump his own money in to get a player he wants he will simple as that.

All these posters critisizing the 'signing' of O'carroll from Wigan, questioning why they are willing to release him, we signed Tickle from Wigan and that didn't turn out to bad did it?

Give him a chance.

Some players have injuries early in there careers and still go on to be regulars in the future. Isn't Danny Nicholas coming back from his second serious injury? Should we just write him off too?

A very good point, you've gone into my favourite persons lists.

Go on then - how much money does he have?

I'm sure he can afford some transfer fees [iwhere necessary[/i. I'm also sure he won't be wasting money on a whim.