So according to someone in the player contract thread, the whisper in the Hun today was suggesting there's a bit of a gap between what Langdon is asking for and what the club is offering.
Tinfoil hat time, but given that he, Elliott and Moore went to NZ during the bye, and the latter two held off (or are continuing to) from signing contracts in order to get their price up, maybe they all had a good chat about how to do so.
Elliott has probably re-signed with the knowledge that he has the least bargaining power out of the three of them.
But again, maybe it's bullshit. Back in 2015 when Langdon signed his last extension, the Hun quoted him as saying he was a traditionalist and wanted to stay with the club for life and repay the faith given we were the only club to take notice of him at draft time.
Langdon is an interesting one.
I rate him similar to Josh Thomas - not in our top 10-15, but has cemented himself in the 22 - though might not stay there with a fully healthy squad.
Prior to Shaz's ACL, I would not have been too fussed losing Langdon. Both Shaz and Howe can play that intercepting role, and both are more reliable with their possession.
But with Shaz out for the year, and question marks over where Moore and Dunn are at with health and contract/retirement, it does become more of a priority to keep him.
Problem is, Langdon and his agent will know that, and it would not suprise me if other clubs are circling.
But does that mean we should increase our contract offer to match that? Or do we stick with an offer that is more consistent with where we rate him? (Lower 1/3 of the 22).
Personally I would stick firm with our contract offer. If he wants more then he has to wait for other pieces to fall and gamble that he might get a better offer at that stage.
If he gets a better offer from elsewhere, then lets see what we can get in a trade.