I don't know what the problem ever was about him getting two years? People like Wilf bleating on that his body will be shot to bits is a load of sh&te. He's really fit, trains hard and his injury record is almost none existent. Look at players like Menzies who is still doing the business and a couple of years oldern than Lee.

I'm dissappointed Rovers never got him to be honest, will do a solid job for you lot for the two years he's contracted.

Congratulations on the re-signing of an average forward!



Sheer madness to give him 2 years!

Think its fairly obvious we've offered a 1 year deal but the other targets we've had have obviously escaped us so as i said this morning we've probably changed our offer from 1 year to 2 in order to not be short of a front row next year.

Regarding his salary, its as Standee said for me. We want to make sure we are getting value for money and Radford is not worth a huge salary. (if he was indeed on one before)

A reduced deal for him for 1 year was ideal, 2 years is ok as long as it's a reduced deal to allow some signings.

But with Dowes going thay may have offered a little more and put him on the same contract as now, I think he is worth it IMO.

Surprised that he has got a 2 year deal whoever his agent is has done a great job getting him that.

maybe his second year isnt worth so much and a testimonial (sp) swayed him to stay and to boost his wages on his second year? Allthough he could have 1 if he had gone to rovers i think he will get far more people at kc

Bang on the money - IMHO.

Maybe he's on a reduced terms playing contract.,topped up
by a coach's salary for the u15's.??

Could they do same for Webster??

i'm happy - radford is a loyal black n white, plenty of experience and he's tough and a demon in defence

we've lost cusack and dowes and we need an english forward given the quota reduction. apart from fielden/LMS there's not much out there available better than radford IMO

would rather keep radders than dowes and we can't afford to lose 'em both. Agar has said a few times recently that we are going for a more rigid salary structure implying that radford is in adherence to this new policy therefore we probably shouldn't whinge about his salary either

What I was getting at is that it seems all agents need to do is say that their player may be leaving for Rovers and we give them what they want. We had it last year with Sam Moa and now this year with Radford.

i think you'll find fc have a wage structure and have been proven in the past the wont break that. I dont think they would in this situation either

Well with all the rumours going around, I think is by far the best outcome. I would have been shocked if we had signed him but it seems most on here are happy with his re signing.

The decision to keep Moa was undoubtedly the correct one.

No no no no no no no

and no

when will people stop being deluded fools and realise he is not a player we should have!!!!!!

we need to aim much higher

I have not mentioned salary at all, I was saying that we have had 2 players who were offered 1 year deals then all of a sudden Rovers 'declare interest' or a story is fabricated by the HDM and next thing we are offering a 2 year deal.

I'll continue to bleat on then and talk some more of that brown stuff that despite the fact it runs up and down your ground all season never makes the grass any greener....he will be fine next year, not sure about the one after that though, no different than what I said when Rovers made him an offer. One of his major strengths is off the field in the dressing room anyway. As Justine said last night he is a quality player and good to have in the middle of the field. I expect that we have kept to our offer, which was not as big as some others, but made it two years and not one and offered some coaching which he was after.

Now talking to the more civilised officianado's, it was interesting when he talks about Rich's plans for the future and does anyone else wonder if now we should withdraw our offer to Dowesey and try and get some new blood at prop?

It is now given how he has been performing however at the time it was a massive risk to offer him a 2 year deal given the tightening of the overseas players rulings.

The thing is, how many do? Totally agree that there's is much value in players of the Radford/Dowes mould. Our problem in recent years has not been that we've had such players, just the amount we've had. The balance is beginning to be redressed IMO.

Dont think thats the rational at all. I think it's more a case of there been no one else out there. We offered Radders a 1 year deal while we were having talks with LMS and Fielden. Once we knew that neither was coming we realised we had to up our offer to keep Radders. Nothing to do with Rovers or the HDM imo.

Would rather have kept Dowes if that's what this means, don't think he's got 2 years in him. Will be happy to be proved wrong.

I would respectfully disagree. I think he showed enough last season to indicate that he would be worth at least two years.

It's another facet of our unique position though. If there is genuine interest from Rovers, it's a much easier option to take for players without a passion for Hull FC. There can't be a less disruptive change of clubs in RL, surely?

The problem is telling the difference between genuine interest and complete guff to try and improve terms. I would hope that the club are in a better position than us to know how strong their position is.

Depends what other options we have as a new prop?

agree with Wilf, unless his body miraculously repairs itself , i think he will become a bit part in the second term of his new contract !!.. however given what is available for the same money he is a steal!!

Yup, and if i was him i'd be banging on Rules' door to get an improved deal on longer terms after this year. The kids worth a 4-year deal IMO.

Depends on who we can bring in i guess Wilf.
Would be suprised now if either the Fielden or LMS Signings came off.
Would be happy with Hargreaves though.Only 24,plenty of experience and an underrated player IMO.