Re: Darrell Griffin : Tue Jan 31, 2012 12:47 pm  

He's not the first and he won't be the last. Not as bad as those that sign illegal contracts before the anti-tampering deadline and then renege on them later though. That really is having your cake and eating it.

Re: Darrell Griffin : Tue Jan 31, 2012 2:52 pm  

Wigan had talks, and Warrington offered more money......but I want to win things!

Well, you've come to the right place my boy!

Re: Darrell Griffin : Tue Jan 31, 2012 4:06 pm  

Rommel wrote:

Why would you say such a thing? Jamie has scored lots of try's and his kicking is invaluable, his pay rise is worth every penny whatever he got?

I wasnt saying Jamie a bad playet and didnt deserved his new contract but wat griffin would of been offered would of been a lot more then Jamie extension

Re: Darrell Griffin : Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:01 pm  

1984saints wrote:

I wasnt saying Jamie a bad playet and didnt deserved his new contract but wat griffin would of been offered would of been a lot more then Jamie extension

i knew what you meant. Even if Griffins money has been divided up between all those with contract extentions that still leaves the money under the new Keep Tomkins rule, so we do have a hole in our cap somewhere. I very much doubt what ever Griffin was offered plus the Tomkins money could have been split up between a few of the younger lads on new contracts.

Also it does ask the question, what is the difference in recruitment policy that means Leeds sign a player they want in 1 day and we don't. I'm not saying that our policy is wrong, but it does leave us open to being undercut more often.

Re: Darrell Griffin : Tue Jan 31, 2012 8:54 pm  

bewareshadows wrote:

i knew what you meant. Even if Griffins money has been divided up between all those with contract extentions that still leaves the money under the new Keep Tomkins rule, so we do have a hole in our cap somewhere. I very much doubt what ever Griffin was offered plus the Tomkins money could have been split up between a few of the younger lads on new contracts.

Also it does ask the question, what is the difference in recruitment policy that means Leeds sign a player they want in 1 day and we don't. I'm not saying that our policy is wrong, but it does leave us open to being undercut more often.

We've had few props lead us up the garden Plath like carvell, Adrian shelford and now griffin.

It shows that Royce feels we are light in the prop department in the fact we tried to sign him.


I think he would have been a good signing.

Re: Darrell Griffin : Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:40 pm  

St pete wrote:

We've had few props lead us up the garden Plath like carvell, Adrian shelford and now griffin.

It shows that Royce feels we are light in the prop department in the fact we tried to sign him.


I think he would have been a good signing.

He would have been good, but he isnt world class, so not worth world class wages. Leeds had oodles of cash after buderus left so probably did offer more than anyone else, regardless of anything he says!

Re: Darrell Griffin : Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:43 pm  

I dont think its a huge loss personally.

Would have given us more depth at prop, however his failure to sign gives the youngsters more opportunity to come through.

Griffin would never be more than a good solid prop, whereas the youngsters still have the potential to be top class props

Re: Darrell Griffin : Tue Jan 31, 2012 10:30 pm  

It's a big loss. Perry will be injured, TP is injured and that will increase in regularity as he is now getting on a bit. And we've only got one more real prop. Another would have gone down a treat, just a regular run of the mill prop would add great solidity and value to our squad and Griffin is better than that.

Re: Darrell Griffin : Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:07 pm  

BillyRhino wrote:

Wigan had talks, and Warrington offered more money......but I want to win things!

Well, you've come to the right place my boy!

Worst spelling of Widnes ever seen you muppet.

Re: Darrell Griffin : Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:19 pm  

I have no real opinion on how good he is, the point is that he did what was best for him. My point is why could we not secure him before Leeds even made themselves interested.

Surely if we want a prop as Pete says then we could have got one average prop in the off season. Unless Royce thinks that our young props are better than an average SL prop. But if that is the case will he use them???