The more I think about it the more I agree with the above sentiments. The fact George played through injury this season doesn't mean he is injury prone. He just picked up an injury but played through it and still gave some excellent performances.

I think it depends on the view of SW, MM and IL as to what is best for the club when they look at the bigger picture in that they will have an idea of can his undoubted quality as a player be replaced readily enough and what the salary cap implications are of giving him a new deal (this is where IL comes in!).

My own view is it would be ideal if he could be used to ease players into the team over the next two years rather than letting him go and giving Goulding and Thornley too much exposure. By the end of two years Gleeson will be at the end of his career as well which is something else to consider. It means in the next two years we have to replace two of the best centres in the competition. I just don't see how letting George go now and relying on the younger players will advance the sides chances in the short term next season as I don't see the younger players as up to taking his place nor is there an obvious centre recruit to come in which I am not sure we'd want anyway as they would want a longer deal as well thus keeping the young players out.

It's a bit of a dilemma!

Dave

If Carmont wants 2 years i would give him 2 years personally. I wouldn't say he is injury prone and don't think he has missed too many matches either in his stay here even though he has been carrying a knock for some time. Throughout his time at wigan he has been our best centre by a pretty large margin, on one leg or not, and i think we would be daft to let him leave for the sake of an extra year. If we do end up letting him go however i would hope that this would be because our new coaching setup had decided that Goulding/Pryce/Thornley were going to slot in here for the whole season (and were ready to do so) and not sign someone else to play in Carmonts place.

I agree. I think signing someone else to replace him would mean signing an establish pro on a two or three year deal and they would block the progression of the players you mention which is why (I assume) the club don't want to offer Carmont two years in the first place.

Replacing Carmont with a similar level of player for two years seems pointless, doing it for longer by dishing out a three year deal is even worse from the younger players development point of view.

The only way we should sign a replacement for Carmont is if we get a world class centre in his prime. Hardily likely to happen.

Dave

Another option could be to play Roberts at centre (where he has played in the NRL) and play Ainscough on the wing.

Worst idea you've ever come up with, don't think Roberts at centre would work. Doesn't seem big enough or powerful enough or even have the quality passing skills to be a centre.

Don't think this is a good idea personally. He is only just starting to settle at wing so i don't think it would help to move him to centre and hope for the best. If you are looking at fitting Ainscough in and don't think the younger lads are ready for centre i would rather see Phelps at centre with Richards at fullback leaving a wing spot for him that way.

An absolutely horrible thought. worst option possible

think he's having one of his senior moments

Oh ye of little faith,

I've just seen on the Quins page that LMS could be a potential target for the Bulls!

Anyone else think we should go for him as well?