dont forget platt and sykes are already under contract next year too though. If it was a blank slate contract wise I'd retain royston ahead of either of them but as it is how many utility backs do we need?. Given that we cant just release either platt or sykes without having to pay them off and the ensuing salary cap hit.

Fox is pretty quick, fast and speedy, oh and he's got pace to burn as well, he's also......................did I mention how nippy he was?



I know you can't buy speed or train it into someone who hasn't got it and its a great asset to have, but it is only really useful with a bit of ability to go with it. From what I've seen of Foxy, that's his downfall at the top level.

im guessing part of mats point is that it isnt just the bulls decision on royston, maybe he wants a starting spot somewhere

that was my thinking. plus he'd be able to command a better salary as a starting player than as a utility back.

I have been told that foxy is going to join the "kick and clap brigade"?

Found it, meant to reply to this before but work got in the way. Can see what you mean but would this not suggest neither Walker OR Royston should get an extension?



I don't see it as being beyond the limit of our salary cap to have Sykes, Platt and Royston. Suspect this will more be whether Royston wants to be a backup, as seems likely with Kearney around, and/or another team will offer him a starting slot.



I really think Royston is a try scoring machine waiting to happen once a few players get on his wavelength. Keep seeing him run through without quite getting the pass out to him. We've seen the difference with Herbert finding Elima and I think Royston is the same.

Thats The key point for me. I'd love to keep Royston as think hes a much better player to have as a utility than some of players we have in that position. Its whether he's happy with that backup role and also the financial implications for him signing a deal as a backup as opposed to as a starting player.



Walker is a little bit of a different kettle of fish. He'd arguably be signed as a starting , but even if he was relegated to a utility role he offers something a little different to platt and sykes as he can play in 2nd row, whereas their utility value is purely in backs. Not sure if thats enough of a benefit to make him worth retaining as we're well stocked with dedicated 2nd rowers anyway.

Didn't look very good vs Huddersfield, defense was awful and McGillvary ran circles round Fox.

True. Fox also looked to be losing ground when he chased McGilvary too, which surprised me a bit. I might have to re-visit my earlier post and remove some of the comments saying how quick he was, he certainly didn't look particularly quick last night. Maybe he's carrying knocks or strains, I don't know, but he was less impressive than normal.

Yeah, there's a good player in there, but not a massive improvement on what we have.



Over the past few years our retention and recruitment policy has left us with a surplus in certain areas, and a severe shortage in others. For the 2010 season we went into it with 7 fullbacks and after Orford was unavialible makeshift halves. We've always had any number of second rowers but not enough props to deal with the invetable injuries in that position.



So no thanks, but hope he gets sorted and playing regular again.

My rovers friends and acquaintances say(plus what I've seen myself) he's lost a bit of pace, combined with his confidence issues and the fact that I don't think he gives anything we don't already have in raynor and ainscough, I don't think he's one for us

Ooh matron.