IMO we should offer Carmont a one year deal with the option of a second if he playes X amount of games. This could ease any concerns about him being injury prone.

but thats apparently what the club are offering, but he wants a straight 2 year deal because he wants the security of still having a job this time next year. He can get a 2 year deal at other clubs in super league so thats why he's wanting one from us.

He did the same thing either last year or the previous year and wanted a better or a new contract from us or he was going to union.

With a new coach coming in then hed better accept the 1 year thats on offer or why if hes been offered a contract from Saints is he still in consultation with us.

IL call his bluff.

Wigan at their pomp got rid of world class players once they got to 30. We need to get this culture back in the club. Yes GC has been good but we have young players coming through and should not offer GC a 2 year deal.

If you're good enough you're young enough. Are you trying to tell me you wouldn't have a player at your club when he turns 30?


Jamie Peacock, Adrian Morley...

I am telling you that SL is miles behind NRL and that we need to be ruthless about contracts. I would not sign GC for 2 years.

I agree but you need to asses the situation and think about how much longer they can play at that level. If some people think he cannot play to that ability for another season than that is their opinion and fairplay to them.

just popped in from wire board enjoyed reading this topic and not much bitching about other clubs thats the way it should be done

It was very much tongue in cheek mate, but would you rather have 2 years from a 30 year old Billy Slater or 10 from a 20 year old Doc Murray?

Ridiculous comparison but I would not sign either.

You wouldn't sign Billy Slater?