Tom Shines
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2022
- Messages
- 2,997
No. Well actually not really would be more accurate.
There is evidence that overpaying Staines is bad business. Simply the phrase overpaying suggests it is bad business. Otherwise the statement would just be "signing Staines is bad business", which I have not claimed.
Then there is actually evidence of why it would be bad business. He didn't make any difference to our team, or even play particularly well last year. He has failed to standout as an NRL winger in his career to date.
Additionally, as a winger he is unlikely to change the fortunes of our team, compared to say if we did pay overs for Luai or when Knights paid overs for Ponga. There is 25 years of NRL and 100+ years of rugby league to support this.
The argument for what I'm saying being speculative would be
is this evidence firm? Obviously I believe so. It doesn't mean that he can't improve his performance moving forward but the odds are against him.
And, what is overs. I've somewhat addressed this already. Just because Peters believes it's overs doesn't mean it is, or that others would agree. I haven't actually assigned a value but have said that I've taken it in its simplest form. That is to mean that it is a value that would be widely be accepted as above his market value.
Edit: as my previous posts. The claim of these 3 clubs wanted to sign Staines had no evidence, firm or otherwise. Thus it was speculation.
I disagree… but I’m not going to argue any further ,,,it would just be recycling whaI I have already said which i believe is clear …