[Mild Rover]

: Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:37 am  

It is two sides of the same coin really. 'Control' of the situation is held equally by both Hall and Hull.

If Hull approach him about a new deal, then decision is his. If he comes to them with a set of demands, then they can choose.

Only if Hull did not offer him any deal or counter offer would I say they did not want him. Not wanting him because they think his demands excessive or unreasonable is not the same as not wanting him.

: Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:38 am  

Mild Rover wrote:

It is two sides of the same coin really. 'Control' of the situation is held equally by both Hall and Hull.

If Hull approach him about a new deal, then decision is his. If he comes to them with a set of demands, then they can choose.

Only if Hull did not offer him any deal or counter offer would I say they did not want him. Not wanting him because they think his demands excessive or unreasonable is not the same as not wanting him.

id guess thats why its called a contract negotiation

: Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:38 am  

Mild Rover wrote:

It is two sides of the same coin really. 'Control' of the situation is held equally by both Hall and Hull.

If Hull approach him about a new deal, then decision is his. If he comes to them with a set of demands, then they can choose.

Only if Hull did not offer him any deal or counter offer would I say they did not want him. Not wanting him because they think his demands excessive or unreasonable is not the same as not wanting him.

Exactly

: Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:40 am  

SmokeyTA wrote:

put it this way,

if Justin Morgan really did turn down Shaun Berrigan, he made a massive mistake,

Berrigan would walk in to the Hull KR side in whatever position he chose,

in fact he would probably walk in to any side in SL,

IMO he was one of only three real world class signings this season and is much much much better than either Webster of Fisher

Typical of you to come wading in here getting your digs in without reading the thread!

Noones doubting Berrigan's quality, and JM didn't simply 'turn him down'.

You strut around these boards like a peacock on coke, so surely you of all people should be aware of things such as 'the salary cap', and the rules regarding the number of overseas players etc etc.

I'm sure there were many reasons we couldn't and didn't sign Berrigan, but JM was given some advice from a couple of respected coaches and that, amongst those other factors, also had an influence on us not offering him a deal.

Re: CRAIG HALL : Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:40 am  

Dave K. wrote:

You should be, he has the potential to be one of the best centres in SL.

.

Exactly, potential. Thats all it is

: Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:41 am  

reddan wrote:

Typical of you to come wading in here getting your digs in without reading the thread!

Noones doubting Berrigan's quality, and JM didn't simply 'turn him down'.

You strut around these boards like a peacock on coke, so surely you of all people should be aware of things such as 'the salary cap', and the rules regarding the number of overseas players etc etc.

I'm sure there were many reasons we couldn't and didn't sign Berrigan, but JM was given some advice from a couple of respected coaches and that, amongst those other factors, also had an influence on us not offering him a deal.

Re: CRAIG HALL : Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:41 am  

Fill Bee wrote:

Exactly, potential. Thats all it is

You don't even understand whats wrong with that sentance, do you?

[Mild Rover]

: Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:45 am  

Stan Butler wrote:

Has this thread actually raised anything new?

Hall out of contract end of season, has his own estimates of his worth and may look elsewhere if this isn't met.

9 pages of same old same old if you ask me

Lets not let that spoil a perfectly good circular argument and opportunity to spend Friday pointlessly sniping at each though.

Re: CRAIG HALL : Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:45 am  

BalearicHullFan wrote:

:lol: You don't even understand whats wrong with that sentance, do you?

Why don't I, GML stated Justin Morgan probably isn't interested in him right now and thats why. He had potential to become a very good player but I don't think we as a club are in the position to be throwing money at players with potential right now

: Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:49 am  

reddan wrote:

Typical of you to come wading in here getting your digs in without reading the thread!

Noones doubting Berrigan's quality, and JM didn't simply 'turn him down'.

You strut around these boards like a peacock on coke, so surely you of all people should be aware of things such as 'the salary cap', and the rules regarding the number of overseas players etc etc.

I'm sure there were many reasons we couldn't and didn't sign Berrigan, but JM was given some advice from a couple of respected coaches and that, amongst those other factors, also had an influence on us not offering him a deal.

if anyone advised you not to buy Berrigan they made a mistake,

no team is going to do anything with two players in important positions as bad as Fisher and Webster, if you dont like it fine, but thats the truth

your important positions are your 1, 6, 7, 9, 13 right now, none of these are really comparable to the top teams, i dont think either Leeds or Saints would take a second look at what you have there compared to what they already have,

next year both leeds and Saints (probably) will have two hookers a class above Fisher,

Berrigan could have changed that, he would have been the first player in the important positions who was true international quality,

regardless of how much he cost (which obviously isnt ridiculous amounts) or who you would have had to release (Gene or Aizue wouldnt have been greatly missed) he would have improved your team hugely, and made you much more likely to make the six

plus im fairly sure i would listen to Wayne Bennett and Mal Meninga over John Dixon