Hooker is a pretty pivotal position in the modern game.

Saints wanted Fitzgibbon and Wigan wanted Long.

Thorman was more out of desperation then a gamble.







Totally agree.

Neither were prepared to offer two years.

Wigan were, don't know about Fitz and Saints, probably not as it goes against Sainst policy. Anyway I would rather sign a quality thirtysomething than an average young un.

Exactly, especially when you see the benefits they bring to the good youngsters. A balance is needed, weve not had that balance for the last couple of years as much as we would like in the key positions.

What FC have done, rightly or wrongly, is identified that in two seasons we have some good prospects that we can expect to have come into the first team and also matured since 09/10, under the guidance of the older players they will progress more.



I don't like the approach, but I understand it's basic merits.

Still in rehab so I doubt if his medical would have been done yet.

we've only signed fitzgibbon for one year. Have wigan stated they only offered long a one year deal?

I know o'meley has missed alot of this year but was he poor in 2008? How many games did he play?

He did better at the bulldogs but did ok in 2008 got to the play-offs and remember playing well against broncos put some big hits in . 2009 the roosters have being poor full stop with fitz being the best player . Mainly there problem has being poor manager . Think fitz will be great signing kept fit and O'meley also if brings that aggresion to the team and wants to show the poms what he can do . Ricky Stuart wanted both to be in NSW team this year .

That was my point really, o'meley hasn't been poor for 2 seasons its been this season while the roosters have been dire and he's had injury's. I'd ignore what stuart says though I wouldn't let him coach our under 18's.