Hang on a minute..we supposedly couldnt afford to keep Gibbs who is in his prime & a proven & highly valued first grader,but we can afford to buy BOTH Mathew Bell AND Willie Mason,a couple of 30-somethings who havent shone for years(if ever in the case of Bell).
I simply dont get it,other than Sheens must have had enough of Gibbs antics(but is prepared to take a much bigger potential risk on Masons antics)
:wtf ??
U could buy a house with the leftover money from Gibbs' deal to that Bell and Mason are on.
It's a numbers game. If u think Gibbs deserved what he was on, given the strain on today's salary cap and the club already having players such as Marshall, Carah, Ellis, Lawrence etc, u got rocks in your head
Dont think so.
All of us are purely speculating of course,so I will as well…Bell was a regular first choice 17 player at Penrith ,& that puts him in the $80-$100k range absolute minimum.He was probably told he has no future there,so we may have got him for a little less than that
Mason was ONCE a $400k player only a couple of years ago,but the laws of supply & demand..well,there aint much of the latter.its only a guess,but $150-$180k wld top him out these days in the NRL.Remember he played rah rah for the Barbarians just last season(how i have no idea!)
Gibbs is a solid first grader,a notch up from Bell no doubt,but thats it..sometimes he was a run on player,sometimes like Bell a reserve...Im thinking maybe $200-$220k tops was what we were paying him.
Add 'em all up,& its pretty much an even trade..I know who Id rather have.
So you think Bell would be on about X, you reckon we'd have to pay Mason about Y, and you can't see how Gibbs was getting more than Z. And on that basis you're deciding who you'd rather have in the squad. Can I have your phone number? I've got some magic beans I want to sell. :unamused:
