Re: London calling : Fri Aug 16, 2024 8:05 pm  

People saying about Reynolds over cust. If we had announced that we had signed Reynolds on a 1 or 2 year deal, these threads would've exploded. Yes he would be cheaper and yes a we would've had a quota space, but I'm not having it that Reynolds is better then Cust.
I'm not saying Cust is a world beater etc but he is better then Reynolds.

Most in here were saying 'good signing until the end of the season'

Re: London calling : Fri Aug 16, 2024 9:10 pm  

Offy86 wrote:

People saying about Reynolds over cust. If we had announced that we had signed Reynolds on a 1 or 2 year deal, these threads would've exploded. Yes he would be cheaper and yes a we would've had a quota space, but I'm not having it that Reynolds is better then Cust.
I'm not saying Cust is a world beater etc but he is better then Reynolds.

Most in here were saying 'good signing until the end of the season'

Pleenty said when reynolds was here he'd go OK as a back up next year. Cust is injury prone and it looks like we'll end up with him at hooker when he isn't a specialist there. He's an overseas player so takes up a quota spot and will come on a decent chunk of money. Not a great signing imo. Definitely better than reynolds but the overall package not good value for money for me

Re: London calling : Sat Aug 17, 2024 8:09 am  

Jake the Peg wrote:

Pleenty said when reynolds was here he'd go OK as a back up next year. Cust is injury prone and it looks like we'll end up with him at hooker when he isn't a specialist there. He's an overseas player so takes up a quota spot and will come on a decent chunk of money. Not a great signing imo. Definitely better than reynolds but the overall package not good value for money for me

Everyone seems to be injury prone, no.mattwr who we sign.

So would you rather have kept Reynolds then sign Cust?

Re: London calling : Sat Aug 17, 2024 8:17 am  

Offy86 wrote:

Everyone seems to be injury prone, no.mattwr who we sign.

So would you rather have kept Reynolds then sign Cust?

I would, good back up and saves us a quota spot.

Hope Cust proves me wrong, hopefully a one year deal.

Re: London calling : Sat Aug 17, 2024 8:38 am  

Dave K. wrote:

I would, good back up and saves us a quota spot.

Hope Cust proves me wrong, hopefully a one year deal.

So you would've rather have signed a player, who isn't as goodas a player than the one we have signed?
Signing less quality of player is a good thing? Yet when we have signed players that are better then what we have already, you complain.

Right. Ok. We shall leave this conversation there ....

Re: London calling : Sat Aug 17, 2024 8:59 am  

Offy86 wrote:

So you would've rather have signed a player, who isn't as goodas a player than the one we have signed?
Signing less quality of player is a good thing? Yet when we have signed players that are better then what we have already, you complain.

Right. Ok. We shall leave this conversation there ....

You aren't getting the point.

Thought it was pretty simple

Not sure either are good enough to be innourc17 next season, so I'd class both as back ups.

I wouldn't waste a quota spot on a back up, add to this he is very injury prone.

Ideally I'd sign neither and have a better domestic player as back up to hookerband halfback, but that isn't easy.

Re: London calling : Sat Aug 17, 2024 9:01 am  

Offy86 wrote:

So you would've rather have signed a player, who isn't as goodas a player than the one we have signed?
Signing less quality of player is a good thing? Yet when we have signed players that are better then what we have already, you complain.

Right. Ok. We shall leave this conversation there ....

Also it isn't me complaining about the others we have signed, think you are mixing me up with Jake.

Re: London calling : Sat Aug 17, 2024 9:16 am  

Jake the Peg wrote:

Pleenty said when reynolds was here he'd go OK as a back up next year. Cust is injury prone and it looks like we'll end up with him at hooker when he isn't a specialist there. He's an overseas player so takes up a quota spot and will come on a decent chunk of money. Not a great signing imo. Definitely better than reynolds but the overall package not good value for money for me

Exactly. It's almost an inevitability that he'll have to play at some stage in the halfs. Then what? Bourouh will probably be first choice hooker. Now I'm not writing him off because I haven't seen enough off him but he's hardly played for Salford even when they have had injuries. Surely a specialist hooker would have been a better use of the quota place and Reynolds who we know can play would be the back up half.

Re: London calling : Sat Aug 17, 2024 9:52 am  

Offy86 wrote:

Everyone seems to be injury prone, no.mattwr who we sign.

So would you rather have kept Reynolds then sign Cust?

Not everyone is injury prone. Rovers have barely had any injuries this seas9n. Recruiting the right players and the correct S&C regime minimises the chance of injury.

Signing injury prone players, skimping on S&C is asking for trouble

Re: London calling : Sat Aug 17, 2024 9:54 am  

Offy86 wrote:

So would you rather have kept Reynolds then sign Cust?

Yes, cust has done nothing in the last 2 or 3 year other than get injured. It looks like he'll be our hooking option and back up at half back. He isn't a specialist hooker. So apart from the fact he isn't a specialist hooker, has a poor injury record and takes up a valuable quota spot he's a great signing. Would have been better to keep reynolds and sign a specialist hooker imo