jirskyr
Well-known member
I'm sorry Earl but very few Tigers fans believe that is true.Nah - he was copping it and it was ridiculously stupid and I bet he decided it's not worth being a scapegoat especially on a cut price contract.
It's a big loss for us but I don't blame him.
I personally think Brooks could find a decent position at a better club with a better roster. I always thought he would be a natural bargain-buy for Melbourne Storm, and do well amongst guys like Munster and Grant. But in theory, such a move would have the new club paying Brooks a middle-range (Chad Townsend-like) salary and not a top-tier (DCE-like) salary.
The rationale is that Luke Brooks has had 10 years and 200 games at Tigers, mostly at marquee player rates. Overall he hasn't played to that level. Sometimes he has. It is very possible that another club with better support could help Brooks reach his peak more often. But I don't think such a club can afford to also pay Brooks a top-tier salary.
The reality is, if you want to pull one of the elite salaries, you are going to have to play with some mugs, because your salary affects the cap. As good as the Roosters line-up is, for example, they rely very heavily on Tedesco and he has to play at the level of a $1M player, otherwise it hurts the entire team.