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.