: Wed Oct 14, 2009 5:37 pm  

Baked Bean Boogie wrote:

If George is allowed to leave it will be the worse decision since Furner was shown the door, George is by far one of our top 3 of our players, give him 2 years and in his second don't play him when we are playing the lower end of the table, bring a youngster in instead

It's a tricky one but given the state of the squad at the moment I would agree with this.

George Carmont is everything I expect of an overseas player and that is to be one of the best players in the team and one of the best, in your position, in super league and Carmont fits that.

Another reason I would sign him up is partly because he can be injury prone. If for some games he needs a rest (I believe many times this season he has had a pain killing injection before a match) then we can rest him and give Goulding or Pryce ago.

It's a sticky situation really for the management team. Should have been sorted sooner IMO.

: Wed Oct 14, 2009 6:29 pm  

cadoo wrote:

It's a tricky one but given the state of the squad at the moment I would agree with this.

George Carmont is everything I expect of an overseas player and that is to be one of the best players in the team and one of the best, in your position, in super league and Carmont fits that.

Another reason I would sign him up is partly because he can be injury prone. If for some games he needs a rest (I believe many times this season he has had a pain killing injection before a match) then we can rest him and give Goulding or Pryce ago.

It's a sticky situation really for the management team. Should have been sorted sooner IMO.

I think you have worded that wrong.

Another reason to keep him is to keep his quality in that position with the option to rest him and give the younger ones a go.

Keeping a player because they are injury prone is just stupid.

: Wed Oct 14, 2009 7:22 pm  

cadoo wrote:

It's a tricky one but given the state of the squad at the moment I would agree with this.

George Carmont is everything I expect of an overseas player and that is to be one of the best players in the team and one of the best, in your position, in super league and Carmont fits that.

Another reason I would sign him up is partly because he can be injury prone. If for some games he needs a rest (I believe many times this season he has had a pain killing injection before a match) then we can rest him and give Goulding or Pryce ago.

It's a sticky situation really for the management team. Should have been sorted sooner IMO.

The only way I would consider offering him two years, would be with the second year his salary being nearly entirely composed of appearance bonus.

I don't blame George at all though to look for two years on a good basic salary, he's a got a family to provide for.

I just don't see how it would be good for our club to have deliberately plan to play somebody in say half the games, but offer him a full basic salary.

: Wed Oct 14, 2009 8:06 pm  

Odemwingie wrote:

I think you have worded that wrong.

Another reason to keep him is to keep his quality in that position with the option to rest him and give the younger ones a go.

Keeping a player because they are injury prone is just stupid.

It was worded poorly (long day) but I think people get the point. The odds are with Carmont you will get a chance to use Goulding or Pryce due to injuries.

I don't understand why we're some people are unsure on giving Carmont a two year deal due to him either being injury prone or centre being a competitive place but they are happy to see Bailey resigned? IMO it's the same situation just a difference position.

We have heavy competition in the second row and Bailey has had that injury. Same with Carmont.

The difference for me is George Carmont is one of the best players in the squad and one of the best centres in Super League.

Phil Bailey is neither one of the best players at the club or one of the best second rowers in Super League.

For me it has always been a no brainer. Give him a two year contract!

Just my opinion though.

: Wed Oct 14, 2009 8:07 pm  

Steve Ella's Beard wrote:

The only way I would consider offering him two years, would be with the second year his salary being nearly entirely composed of appearance bonus.

Yeah I'm sure that could be done. Say we will pay George Carmont on appearances. Something like 3K per appearance. He makes 18 appearances? and it costs us 54K on the cap.

For me we need to be keeping players of the standard George Carmont is at.

He would have been my priority over Phil Bailey.

: Wed Oct 14, 2009 8:39 pm  

cadoo wrote:

For me we need to be keeping players of the standard George Carmont is at.

Fully agree. I really hope George stays and isn't off to Celtic

: Wed Oct 14, 2009 8:46 pm  

I saw Carmont outside the Willows today.

: Wed Oct 14, 2009 8:49 pm  

We'll have him !

: Wed Oct 14, 2009 9:07 pm  

Been thinking about this for a while. George has been a fantastic player for us, but player signings should be made on present form and potential, not loyalty. I'd love to see him still here in two years, if he can keep his current form, and maybe even improve if he can be injury free, so it's a hard one to call. I see no reason to let him go now just because we won't know how he'll go in two year's time, or whether we'll have a replacement lined up ready to go. Knowing how Darrell suffered, I think we'd be better off keeping George, and bringing the youngsters in slowly alongside him

: Wed Oct 14, 2009 9:40 pm  

I think if we let Carmont go this season we will lose some strike power out wide, where most of our tries seem to come from

Also remember that Carmont only started to play Rugby League proffesionally in his mid twenties so he possibly has a little more wear and tear left in him, if he can shrug of the injury he seemed to be playing with through the back end of last season it might be worth signing him on for another 2 years especially as he is a more experienced head in a young team