Personally I would have kept hold of Dixon. Was really coming along well. From what I have seen of him at Salford this season he has impressed me. One that got away in my book.

It s about what you gain or lose. Manu for Dixon. Flanagan for ashurst. In the end an improvement. You can't say Dixon for Perry. If we did not have Perry or lance it would not have saved Dixon or ashurst.

Personally I would have kept Dixon and not signed Manu but thats my opinion

Manu is a class player and there was more than enough room for both.

Manu replaced Flannery



Dixon was offered the same contract at Saints as he was at Salford but he decided he wanted more game time so backed himself by going to Salford, think its working out well for him .

I thought Dixon would have improved and took on the role similar to Gilmour ....but he didn,t. Thompson and Greenwood look as though they will have better impact and more consistency.

I do feel Flanners keeping Dixon out was a poor decision last season, we could have seen if Dicko was the real deal

Interestingly enough, Dixon got in the Opta Team of the Week on that Boots N All stats pack show.

Dixon was on his way out and got a lot of game time. I would have rather Saints played a young lad who was staying like Greenwood last year.



Young players have a small window to impress until the next batch come in, if you persist with Dixon then Thompson staying in the academy until he is 20.

I quite liked both of them, but neither will turn into top class players and neither will really come back to bite us on the bum.

Ahsurst is not good enough and I've not given him a moments thought since he left.



I thought Dixon did enough in his last season to earn a new deal. He's playing well at Salford but I've lost no sleep over him not being here.



On the subject of Salford, it seems they have been very busy behind the scenes and will have some new faces next season.

Hock's reportedly turning his back on the Eels to sign for Salford.