[urlwww.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-league/24031251[/url



Of topic I know, but I lost count of the numbers of posters on here who claimed to know, FACT, he was going to rovers.



Can the board Mods please have a cull on some of these who persistently post lies on here. At least remind a few that a rumour isn't something that they make up





St's pack is going to be awesome next season.

£50,000 Saints have paid for him, why the hell didn't we try outbid them?

Who says we didn't?

Amor may not have wanted to come here.

Brown is quoted as saying "Kyle is already one of the best front rowers in Super League" which is a position many of us agree needs strengthening. £50,000 is far less than we paid for Westerman, so i don't think we did as we wouldn't stop at 50.

I am not certain how it works but for example if we had offered Wakey £80,000 for him, why would it be Amor's choice to accept St Helens offer leaving Wakey with £30,000 less? You would assume Wakey would turn around to Sts and ask them to match our bid, irrelevant if he wants to come here or not.

I'm disappointed that we didn't get Amor as he is quality in a very small pool of available talent playing in a position we need to strengthen - particularly if Lynch is confirmed as a Cas player. He perfectly fits the bill that AP has outlined. It's too early to make a final call on it though as I don't know what next season's forward line up will be for us yet.

there's always the possibility that our management didn't want/require him, if our business is already done and cap full

Because he's a person and not a piece of Claris Cliff?

Disappointing he's not coming here. saints dispelling the myth that you can't sign quality players in the current market

If you'd quoted the full post instead of trying to make yourself appear humorous, you would have seen me question why the owner of the "Claris Cliff" would accept a lower offer because the vase would prefer to go elsewhere. Don't quote me again unless you're seriously answering a question, you beautiful person.

you do know we abolished slavery some time ago, nobody "owns" a player, the two are not comparable, now don't engage if you don't like being shown up as a soft lad.

Do they or do they not own the playing rights of the player for the duration of his contract? The two are most comparable, soft lad

Oh and I engage in conversation with fellow fans of rugby league, not arguments with an overgrown turd attempting to look clever.