I'm a loser baby...
Immortal
- Messages
- 42,876
A three or four year contract wouldn't cost us roughly the same - the difference would probably be about $400k. Obviously then it would come down to whether Watmough intends to play that final year (or longer) and whether he thinks he could earn another contract if he initially took a year less than he wanted (for more money up front). Obviously both player and club are taking risks with long contracts for 30+ year olds.
Anyway I'd say the difference here is between a two and three year contract rather than between three and four years. We could be offering Watmough $1.2M for two years vs $1.6M for three. And a $400k contract in 2017 won't be as significant a proportion of the salary cap as it is right now.
Anyway it's all speculation. And we'll never know all the facts.
You're right, we'll never know, but you can be sure that a few people here will hint that they do.
A 3 year contract shouldn't be roughly the same as a 4 year contract, but it would be pretty insulting to suddenly reduce the length of the contract by a year and 400K. And what's he really gonna do with more money up front, save a few bucks on his mortgage?
As for 2 years vs 3, why would he play here for less money (1.6M vs 1.8M) than Manly were offering? Or take a shorter contract? Sure, Manly might have spent their dough by now and can't offer him what they previously - reportedly - did, but again that's pretty insulting. Wouldn't be a smart negotiating tactic IMO.