Signings, Suggestions & Rumours Discussion

2041 said:
It's because in a league with a salary cap footballers aren't just footballers - they're footballers with contracts attached.

Do I think Averillo is a good player? Yes. Do I think he'll probably improve the Tigers' first grade team? Also yes. Do I think he'll improve it by so much that I wouldn't mind if the money we're paying him means we can't afford to re-sign, say, Makasini next time he needs extending? No.

That's the point. You can't just say "who cares" what we're paying someone. I mean, sure, the club obviously thinks it's worth it but the club also thought Russell Packer, Josh Reynolds and John Bateman were worth it. We're allowed to have different views - that's sort of what this site is for.

I agree that we don't know what any contract is and I'm sure media reports are often inaccurate. But, again, this is the "signings, suggestions *and rumours*" thread and we can only discuss what's out there. If it's being reported that we're giving Averillo average annual value of around $650,000 that's obviously fair game to discuss - and much as we all slag off NRL reporters I'd be pretty surprised if it turned out to be $300,000 or $1m.
Click to expand...
Your point really is that Packer, Reynolds and Bateman did not perform well for the club. They did not.

Their salaries, whatever they were, are far less important than their failures to lift the club’s performance.
 
Chunk said:
I think it is, how much overs are you willing to pay for a player?

If the reports are correct people will have their opinions on the cost of Averillo and any other player thats signed

Is that player worth the coin being offered?
Click to expand...
What matters ultimately is whether the player helps the club win games when he arrives. Will he be fit enough to take the field most of the time, and will his performances help win matches with tries and good defence.

If the answers to these is yes, whatever he is rumoured to be paid will be less important.
 
rozelle_rudy said:
Your point really is that Packer, Reynolds and Bateman did not perform well for the club. They did not.

Their salaries, whatever they were, are far less important than their failures to lift the club’s performance.
Click to expand...
No, that wasn't my point. That was a response to the specific claim that the club thinks Averillo is good value and therefore there's no point speculating about how much we're paying him.

My point was that no player can be assessed without taking into account his contract. We'd all love to have Payne Haas; at $5m a year he would be a disaster. I really don't know why this is so hard to understand.
 
2041 said:
No, that wasn't my point. That was a response to the specific claim that the club thinks Averillo is good value and therefore there's no point speculating about how much we're paying him.

My point was that no player can be assessed without taking into account his contract. We'd all love to have Payne Haas; at $5m a year he would be a disaster. I really don't know why this is so hard to understand.
Click to expand...
Have to disagree. I'm strong in the belief that player salaries are no business of footy fans. Their performances are
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 2,909 (members: 5, guests: 2,904)
Back
Top