Richmond in contract talks with Grimes & keen to keep him at Punt Road (afl)

[one-eyed]

Grimes, Tigers talk

    Jon Pierik
    The Age
    May 26, 2013

Dylan Grimes is hopeful of a two-year contract extension, as discussions between the injured Richmond defender and his club continue.

Grimes, 21, is out for up to eight weeks because of a foot problem, continuing his luckless run with injury.

His manager Anthony McConville said discussions were ongoing.

''We have been in discussions with the club over the last number of weeks,'' he said. ''We will continue to have dialogue as the season unfolds. Obviously, it would have been nice having Dylan out there playing. No doubt the club would love him to be out there.

''We will be talking probably a couple of years if we are to extend.

''He is in the leadership group. He is highly respected, not only by the leadership group, but also the coaches. To be in the leadership group with a limited amount of games experience says a lot about the person and his character.''

It is understood McConville and the Tigers agree over the length of the contract.

Grimes, the brother of Melbourne's Jack, has endured eye and a series of hamstring injuries and has been restricted to 22 of a possible 53 matches since his debut in late 2010.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/grimes-tigers-talk-20130525-2n429.html#ixzz2UKCdfMrY

[Yeahright]

If Grimes has a stress fracture in his meta tarsal (which if I'm not mistaken is the sameish bone Conca's hurt) and is out for 6-8 weeks. Is it fair to say if Conca has missed 6-8 weeks he actually had a fracture?

But they have said Conca's had not developed into a stress fracture, they got it early hence only 4-5 weeks for him.

Have heard he is a chance to play next week

Not asking what the club said. Saying if he misses 6-8 can we say its a fracture

What if I told you at the player sponsor dinner that Conca  said it wasn't a stress fracture and it was only a hot spot? Would that be better?

Errrrr.. No cause it doesn't answer my question

[WilliamPowell]

If Grimes has a stress fracture in his meta tarsal (which if I'm not mistaken is the sameish bone Conca's hurt) and is out for 6-8 weeks. Is it fair to say if Conca has missed 6-8 weeks he actually had a fracture?

But they have said Conca's had not developed into a stress fracture, they got it early hence only 4-5 weeks for him.

Have heard he is a chance to play next week

Not asking what the club said. Saying if he misses 6-8 can we say its a fracture

What if I told you at the player sponsor dinner that Conca  said it wasn't a stress fracture and it was only a hot spot? Would that be better?

Errrrr.. No cause it doesn't answer my question

Errrr yes I did  . If Conca says it not a stress fracture then I'll take his word on it. Is that OK? 

[Yeahright]

If Grimes has a stress fracture in his meta tarsal (which if I'm not mistaken is the sameish bone Conca's hurt) and is out for 6-8 weeks. Is it fair to say if Conca has missed 6-8 weeks he actually had a fracture?

But they have said Conca's had not developed into a stress fracture, they got it early hence only 4-5 weeks for him.

Have heard he is a chance to play next week

Not asking what the club said. Saying if he misses 6-8 can we say its a fracture

What if I told you at the player sponsor dinner that Conca  said it wasn't a stress fracture and it was only a hot spot? Would that be better?

Errrrr.. No cause it doesn't answer my question

Errrr yes I did  . If Conca says it not a stress fracture then I'll take his word on it. Is that OK?

No, if you can make up injury rumours so can I

[WilliamPowell]

No, if you can make up injury rumours so can I

Let me make this very clear, I do not, repeat do not make up injury rumours 

If you chose not to believe and take me at my word then that's your choice but I don't make up rumours

 

[Yeahright]

You were quick with the snipping when people didn't have sources for their rumours

[gerkin greg]

Trade him