IMO 400k is a little overs but I don’t get the “we could have got him for 250 or 200 because no other NRL team wanted him”. If he can get that in ESL or rugby then that’s his value.
We need first graders. There’s not much out there. There’s cap space and roster spots. It’s reportedly a short term deal so I’m all for it ??
I absolutely agree with you. I don't get all the angst about whether we might have paid $100k too much for Peachey. The forum has been saying for ages now that we can't attract top players, so what's the opportunity cost here? Are we going to miss out on a great recruitment opportunity because we've overpaid $100k for Peachey? (If we did).
I reckon he'll be a reasonable fit for us. Probably paying overs but not enough to cause dissent amongst the troops. and not enough to cause us salary cap problems.
Peachey isn't a top player ...definitely not ranked in the Top 50 players
Nope. Didn't suggest that he was.
I don't agree paying 25 % more on market value for a player who isn't ranked in the Top 50 .......
Fair enough. Is that just a general view that you shouldn't pay more than something is worth or do you have other reasons for saying that?
What other reasons would I have .....
But getting back to your original question .....you spend 25% extra on mid range players your going to end up with a very poor roster ......we already have 2 Nofa / brooks ......