Brooks on 700k for 4 years?

Would you have signed Luke Brooks for the Tigers on 700k per year for 4 years?

  • Total voters
    131
  • Poll closed .
I would give Brooks a Noddy badge for being loyal but that is it. He is an average 6 and a piss poor 7. At least Manly wont have to suffer with him for the amount of time we have wasted on him. He is probably a nice guy but Manly are welcome to him.
 
He will go well outside DCE for a year or two and we'll cop all the usual anti-Tigers media articles. He wouldn't have been as good if he stayed and won't be any good at Manly either, when DCE is injured or retired and he finds himself as their main man there. This was the best decision for both us and him.
 
Lukic said:
Absolutely no. Not even close.

On price alone, it's a poor deal. Brooks isn't worth 700k. He's having a good year (for his standards) and we're still basically last, despite having a forward pack of internationals and origin players. Sure our backs aren't great, but Brooks just isn't that good a player. Given there is a lack of proven first grade halves on the market, Brooks' market value is probably in the 500-550k range (which is what we correctly offered). He won't win you a game on his own, but can be a complementary piece in a winning side.

The length of the deal is also bad. 2 years or 2 years + option is the most he should be getting. 4 years is what you're locking down a rep level player for, or a youngster who you think is going grow throughout the term of the deal so they're on unders come years 3 and 4. Brooks is going to be 29 starting that deal, 33 finishing it. He's absolutely not a rep level player, nor is he someone who is going to improve throughout the deal. Given he's lost a step of pace (which is his biggest attacking asset) and is now starting to have injuries creep in (calf, hamstring), it's much more likely he regresses throughout the term of the deal.

Ignoring everything about his past at the club, the fact he needs a change of scenery etc, we made what I think was a pretty reasonable offer based on his ability, experience and future projection. 2 years at 550k a year. The contract he's received from Manly is absurd and unless he immediately hits the ground running and shows far more than he has here, it will be a deal that works out very poorly for them.
Click to expand...
Very well said. I concur with all your points except for having a good year. In my view he's had a satisfactory year overall. His form in the first few rounds was diabolical and this was balanced a little by his man of the match performance against the Cowboys. There are two reasons we haven't been able convert opportunities created by the forwards and these are; 1. Poor coaching 2. Poor play by our halves.
 
crazycat said:
Manly have signed Luke Brooks on a 4 year deal for 700k+ a year.
Would you have wanted the Tigers to do this?
Click to expand...
Buzz said $660 a year for Brooks when he was with us it was always upwards of $800k and this year 1 mil+ that shows you a clear agenda. Tigers always overpay even if we don't others get good value.
 
I said yes, but it was a tough question to answer because I would have liked to negotiate it to maybe 3 years with a club option and think if it was negotiated a bit better we could have pulled off a deal that was satisfactory for both parties and kept Luke here as a one club player.

Just a few points:
  • This club does not have a very good record for negotiating, we actually seem to be pretty hopeless and I'm sure we could have been a lot smarter and got him on a more attractive deal.
  • I would not have insulted a long term player that has shown a degree of loyalty to the club with the offer that was made, but that is no surprise really looking at the way we have treated other players that we have let go or pushed out the door.
  • Ridiculous that we have not recognised that he was no more than a running half that should have been the 5/8 all this time instead of having the pressure of "this being his team" etc.
  • 700k for a half is not really that much money with the current cap and expected future increases.
  • How much money are the Parrasites paying for Brown to play 5/8 and I don't think he is providing the best value to date.
  • How the hell has this club not had a controlling half all this time?
  • Could they not see there was a problem and then finally wait until we have descended into an all time low before trying to do something about it and then wonder why no one wants to come.
  • I agree that Luke may very well be a risky signing as he may well be starting to have a few injuries that may keep him out of the game, but these are the risks you take with any signing, but could not be more risky than extending Doueihi at 650k after 2 ACL's before a game was even played.
As I have said it is a tough question to answer but looking at what is available on the market and the fact that we need to sign 3 or 4 halves, I still think Brooks was still a good option for us and there is no excuse for this club allowing thing to descend to the level that we are currently in.

I know I am in the minority on this question, but I have little confidence in the management at this club to do that much better at the moment.
 
Tucker said:
12 people said they would have given Luke a 4 year extension.
It would be good to hear their thoughts as to why they would have done so.
Click to expand...
Voted obviously no as i dont need my head read, but would have been mildy happy to indifferent if the Tigers signed him for $500-$600 for a 2 year deal purely due to their ineptness of having zero other options. A turd is still a turd and either way with or without a numpty at 7 next year it wont result in any more or less wins with or without Brooks in the 7.

Glad he is gone to be honest, you cant fix the problem until the problem is gone.

Next on the chopping block should be Humpty and Dumpty in the back office. Nothing will really change with them still there.
 
I love the 4D chess played by crazycat.

Great snare.

Take a screen shot of those that voted yes and never take their opinion on footy serious ever again on this forum.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BZN
Tucker said:
12 people said they would have given Luke a 4 year extension.
It would be good to hear their thoughts as to why they would have done so.
Click to expand...
I voted yes.
I value him at 700k, having been saying that for some time. But our club being in such a weak position we need to offer overs to sign talent. The 4 years is the overs. Pending current cap situation and other potential signings I might prefer more money less years as the overs. Either way we need the overs to sign him.
We need 2 good halves a 13 and some forward depth. Signing Brooks is one tick off that list and a 700k value doesn't prohibit us from further signings.
Not interested in a slanging match as to if others don't believe Brooks is a good half or not. Obviously in my opinion he is good (not elite, but better than anyone we will replace him with).
 
gregjm87 said:
I voted yes.
I value him at 700k, having been saying that for some time. But our club being in such a weak position we need to offer overs to sign talent. The 4 years is the overs. Pending current cap situation and other potential signings I might prefer more money less years as the overs. Either way we need the overs to sign him.
We need 2 good halves a 13 and some forward depth. Signing Brooks is one tick off that list and a 700k value doesn't prohibit us from further signings.
Not interested in a slanging match as to if others don't believe Brooks is a good half or not. Obviously in my opinion he is good (not elite, but better than anyone we will replace him with).
Click to expand...
The 700k and the 4 years are both overs.

If your argument is they should have signed him just because they have no one better, then its an incredibly weak one. Last I looked we had the spoon last year and are heading there again this year and havent made the finals since Adam was a boy. If no one is better then him or at least a sideways move from him then play anyone else that isnt a proven decade failure and they come with a much better price tag. Getting rid of the problem is a huge start to rebuild this team. How many players decided not to come to this club as they new they would be getting shit service from a teflon halfback?
 
Winston Churchill said:
The 700k and the 4 years are both overs.

If your argument is they should have signed him just because they have no one better, then its an incredibly weak one. Last I looked we had the spoon last year and are heading there again this year and havent made the finals since Adam was a boy. If no one is better then him or at least a sideways move from him then play anyone else that isnt a proven decade failure and they come with a much better price tag. Getting rid of the problem is a huge start to rebuild this team. How many players decided not to come to this club as they new they would be getting shit service from a teflon halfback?
Click to expand...
As I said I don't believe the 700k is overs, it's bang on where I evaluate him. Happy to simply agree to disagree on this point.
My argument is not only sign as there is noone better, however it is part of it. Another way to phrase that is sign the best available. That happens to be Brooks. The options discussed aren't a sideways move, they are a backwards ones.
I am well aware of our finals drought. I just don't attribute that to Brooks. There is some blame there that he hasn't been able to be the dominant half we need. But that imo is more on the club not recruiting one and we still need a dominant half without Brooks in the team.
My opinion is that it becomes even more difficult to find one if their likely half's partner will be Wakeham, or any other Reggie's half, than Brooks.
There is no evidence of players not wanting to sign to play alongside Brooks. You can speculate this all you like (and it might even be true) but zero evidence. There is evidence to the contrary in the recruits of last of season that we were all so pleased with came here despite Brooks being here.
 
Winston Churchill said:
Voted obviously no as i dont need my head read, but would have been mildy happy to indifferent if the Tigers signed him for $500-$600 for a 2 year deal purely due to their ineptness of having zero other options. A turd is still a turd and either way with or without a numpty at 7 next year it wont result in any more or less wins with or without Brooks in the 7.

Glad he is gone to be honest, you cant fix the problem until the problem is gone.

Next on the chopping block should be Humpty and Dumpty in the back office. Nothing will really change with them still there.
Click to expand...
I don’t doubt that you know your turds Winnie, but to my knowledge, there are plenty of $500k halves out there but none as good as Brooks.
The forward pack we eventually got him came too late. He had already decided to go.
How do you get an optimal performance from a player who’s heart has already left?
Sure he gave a Masterclass against Cleary, but it was an audition.
 
I think most players receiving the same offer from the current club or a different one will chose the current club. For Brooks, I think it got to the stage the equal offers would mean him leaving. Getting offered more, by another club, and for two years longer, made it a no brainer.

This is the right choice....for WT and for Brooks.
 
twentyforty said:
I don’t doubt that you know your turds Winnie, but to my knowledge, there are plenty of $500k halves out there but none as good as Brooks.
The forward pack we eventually got him came too late. He had already decided to go.
How do you get an optimal performance from a player who’s heart has already left?
Sure he gave a Masterclass against Cleary, but it was an audition.
Click to expand...
Usually not worth my time as they add very little but I reply to plenty.

They must be real bad halves if theyre worse than a proven decade long career failure thats about to run a team last 2 years in a row. Hard to imagine they arent anywhere near Brooks stellar talent.

Turds indeed.
 
Last edited:
gregjm87 said:
As I said I don't believe the 700k is overs, it's bang on where I evaluate him. Happy to simply agree to disagree on this point.
My argument is not only sign as there is noone better, however it is part of it. Another way to phrase that is sign the best available. That happens to be Brooks. The options discussed aren't a sideways move, they are a backwards ones.
I am well aware of our finals drought. I just don't attribute that to Brooks. There is some blame there that he hasn't been able to be the dominant half we need. But that imo is more on the club not recruiting one and we still need a dominant half without Brooks in the team.
My opinion is that it becomes even more difficult to find one if their likely half's partner will be Wakeham, or any other Reggie's half, than Brooks.
There is no evidence of players not wanting to sign to play alongside Brooks. You can speculate this all you like (and it might even be true) but zero evidence. There is evidence to the contrary in the recruits of last of season that we were all so pleased with came here despite Brooks being here.
Click to expand...
No evidence besides reality with no back worth their salt being signed to play under Brooks, we will have to speculated on the reasons why. We will have to wait and see what signings happen now over the next 2-3 years. Will make for plenty of interesting comments when they inevitably start happening. Plenty of forwards happy to sign up this year knowing they had Api at hooker giving service.
 
Winston Churchill said:
No evidence besides reality with no back worth their salt being signed to play under Brooks, we will have to speculated on the reasons why. We will have to wait and see what signings happen now over the next 2-3 years. Will make for plenty of interesting comments when they inevitably start happening. Plenty of forwards happy to sign up this year knowing they had Api at hooker giving service.
Click to expand...
My speculation is that the club's cap was out of shape and this in combination with other turmoil at the club meant it was difficult to recruit players. When we finally got some cap space last offseason the focus was on forwards because it doesnt matter how good your backs are if your pack is no good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 264 (members: 7, guests: 257)
Back
Top