Out of the three i'd possibly keep Arundle.. He looked good before he got injured. I think that's his downfall, he's too injury prone and it always seems to happen when he picks up form.
Joined: Jun 01 2007 Posts: 12653 Location: Leicestershire.
Diogenes wrote:I also think Arundel may still have something to offer.
It could be a smart move on his part to offer to reduce his terms as it would show he is committed. However if Radford just doesn't fancy him it would probably be a waste of time.
You mean he should take less cash for more years? Less cash alone would show he should be committed. Contracted to 2016, so he need be in no rush.
'Thus I am tormented by my curiosity and humbled by my ignorance.' from History of an Old Bramin, The New York Mirror (A Weekly Journal Devoted to Literature and the Fine Arts), February 16th 1833.
Joined: Aug 31 2005 Posts: 8546 Location: Location Location
Standee wrote:the only thing more dangerous than Twitter is the "Reply All" button on email, if I ever use it (which I rarely do), I delete all of the names and then add them again one by one, once made a MASSIVE mistake that cost me a contract!
been in bother myself on that score. However, the reply all is also a great function to slam dunk the original senders efforts to be a pi1ck and copy every man and his dog in!
Joined: Aug 30 2005 Posts: 3231 Location: in a cave
Mild Rover wrote:
Diogenes wrote:I also think Arundel may still have something to offer.
It could be a smart move on his part to offer to reduce his terms as it would show he is committed. However if Radford just doesn't fancy him it would probably be a waste of time.
You mean he should take less cash for more years? Less cash alone would show he should be committed. Contracted to 2016, so he need be in no rush.
No I just meant he should offer to take less money for the reminder of his contract in the hope of getting back into the team.
First there was wisdom Then there was knowledge Now there is only information
Diogenes wrote:No I just meant he should offer to take less money for the reminder of his contract in the hope of getting back into the team.
I've often thought that re-negotiating contracts with the likes of Miller and Arundel would be the best way forward, but obviously the likelihood of them accepting lower money is slim, especially in Arundel's case who has a lot longer on his deal.
Joined: Jun 01 2007 Posts: 12653 Location: Leicestershire.
Diogenes wrote:No I just meant he should offer to take less money for the reminder of his contract in the hope of getting back into the team.
As 1865 says, the chances of that are slim. If he's the best option available and Hull are paying him anyway it'd be cutting your nose off to spite your own face not to pick him. If he's not the best option, he won't get picked anyway despite taking up less of the wage budget (which'd be a bitter pill for him, I'm sure). It might just be that he's not part of LR's plans, in which case there are 3 better options than taking a pay cut. Pay-off, subsidised loan deal at another club, hang about and hope for a new coach.
This time next year, a renegotiation might be sensible. He'll be paying tax at the higher rate, unless rumours are miles off, so there'd be a case for taking an extra 12 months on less per year than he'd otherwise get in 2016, but more than he'd get elsewhere.
'Thus I am tormented by my curiosity and humbled by my ignorance.' from History of an Old Bramin, The New York Mirror (A Weekly Journal Devoted to Literature and the Fine Arts), February 16th 1833.
Joined: Aug 30 2005 Posts: 3231 Location: in a cave
Mild Rover wrote:
Diogenes wrote:No I just meant he should offer to take less money for the reminder of his contract in the hope of getting back into the team.
As 1865 says, the chances of that are slim. If he's the best option available and Hull are paying him anyway it'd be cutting your nose off to spite your own face not to pick him. If he's not the best option, he won't get picked anyway despite taking up less of the wage budget (which'd be a bitter pill for him, I'm sure). It might just be that he's not part of LR's plans, in which case there are 3 better options than taking a pay cut. Pay-off, subsidised loan deal at another club, hang about and hope for a new coach.
This time next year, a renegotiation might be sensible. He'll be paying tax at the higher rate, unless rumours are miles off, so there'd be a case for taking an extra 12 months on less per year than he'd otherwise get in 2016, but more than he'd get elsewhere.
Its hard to see him getting many starts when we will have Sa, Yeaman, Michaels and Logan who can all play centre. However I would rather have seen him at centre last year than Whiting.
I don't believe he is part of LR's plans. Offering to take a pay cut may play well with the Chairman but probably not the Coach. He could sit on his arris collecting the cash for anther two years but he's only young and he'll want to get a contract somewhere else after 2016 so needs to be playing. Most teams will be sorting out their recruitment soon so if his future does lie elsewhere it needs sorting in the near future.
First there was wisdom Then there was knowledge Now there is only information
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
