I reckon AD is delusional asking for that money. He has never been a consistently good player.
Why does everything have to be about Brooks as well. It's over the top.
I think that AD, whilst obtaining his recent Uni degree, has made the mistake of many marketers in basing $ on fractured data.
Brooks is overpaid based on performance/ delivery but if AD is using Brooks as a guide to his worth then he’s using the wrong data but in this crazy NRL world someone may well offer it.
Just look at Reynolds for $750k Pa, totally wrong but based on the perceived need, at the time, for a marquee type player. Only problem was that he just wasn’t. So what happens around that, players start aligning their bargaining around fractured data.
Private enterprise bases its salary justification on a) the role and b) the perceived ability of the person to deliver desired results. The better you are at what you do, the more money you can demand.
But first you have to consistently show how good you are, before you can entertain such thoughts.
If AD starts to really deliver this year then he will get his money but until that time you can only pay him on his output, which up to now has been spasmodic, good at times but mediocre in others.
The clubs should only offer what they think is their optimal position. Money and contract lengths both come into play and we are starting to do that now.