Rumoured and Confirmed Signings with added crap - XXVI

[Poupou Escobar]

So who do we think this mystery Foran plus 1 more first grader is?

What are you on about? It's whoever costs that much. You don't one-for-one players each year like some dopes think: "Well we've lost this guy, this guy and this guy, and only bought this guy and this guy, so we should have $500k dollars left for players..." Player contract values change from year to year, especially when they sign a new contract. My argument is that if Hayne had stayed he would have cost the same as Foran + $Y where $Y is the cost of an entire first grader (IMO the difference would have been closer to $500k than to $200k).

Obviously those refuting my position believe any of the following are more likely:

1. Hayne, if he had stayed, would have been on less than Foran
2. Hayne, if he had stayed, would have been on the same as Foran
3. Hayne, if he had stayed, would have been on more than Foran, but the difference would not buy a player of first grade standard

I think that when you have to pay overs for players (and if we did then we would have had to pay overs for either Foran or Hayne) then the more the player is worth the more overs you have to pay as well. So where a player worth $200k might want $250k to come to an unstable club, a player worth $1.2M might want $1.5M or more.

This is why players like Hayne and Farah offer negative value to weak clubs even where a strong club might be able to get some value out of them.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

There's the lying little merkin right there.

Of course he changed his tune after he was caught out in this lie, that's the whole point.

Okay I'll indulge your desperate desire to troll me. How is that statement a lie?

 

[Gazzamatta]

Hayne 2016 = $1.5million
Vrs
Foran 2016 = $1.2 million
Gordon 2016 = $300k.

Not saying its the deal Id prefer but I can live with it.

 

[caylo]

What are you on about? It's whoever costs that much. You don't one-for-one players each year like some dopes think: "Well we've lost this guy, this guy and this guy, and only bought this guy and this guy, so we should have $500k dollars left for players..." Player contract values change from year to year, especially when they sign a new contract. My argument is that if Hayne had stayed he would have cost the same as Foran + $Y where $Y is the cost of an entire first grader (IMO the difference would have been closer to $500k than to $200k).

Obviously those refuting my position believe any of the following are more likely:

1. Hayne, if he had stayed, would have been on less than Foran
2. Hayne, if he had stayed, would have been on the same as Foran
3. Hayne, if he had stayed, would have been on more than Foran, but the difference would not buy a player of first grade standard

I think that when you have to pay overs for players (and if we did then we would have had to pay overs for either Foran or Hayne) then the more the player is worth the more overs you have to pay as well. So where a player worth $200k might want $250k to come to an unstable club, a player worth $1.2M might want $1.5M or more.

This is why players like Hayne and Farah offer negative value to weak clubs even where a strong club might be able to get some value out of them.

This is true but players value is also supply and demand. Foran would have been worth more $$ if he was the only half on the market but he is a top player as well so he was always going to. Demand big $$. Hayme on the other hand may not have wanted to negotiate with other clubs and while he might be worth 1.5mil we could possibly have signed him for 1-1.2mil and more might have been coveree under tpas compared to foran.

I dont know, there is multiple scenarios but both players are paid the value of 2-3 top players and no one is really truly worth it on face value but its not individuals that win game the team. You are able to afford foran when guys like.l Scott and man'u are playing above their wage compared to over paying guys like loko, ben smith and dan Mortimer.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Hayne 2016 = $1.5million
Vrs
Foran 2016 = $1.2 million
Gordon 2016 = $300k.

Not saying its the deal Id prefer but I can live with it.

YOU HAVE NO PROOF OF THOSE NUMBERS merkin!!!!

 

[hineyrulz]

Who needs Foran????, all we needed were two good forwards anyway........

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Well after buying Watmough we only needed one more, and we bought Scott with the change we got from swapping Hayne for Foran.

 

[Gazzamatta]

YOU HAVE NO PROOF OF THOSE NUMBERS merkin!!!!

You could be right. I've just read that Foran is only receiving $1.1 million. I guess we've got some change to spend.

 

[Gazzamatta]

Well after buying Watmough we only needed one more, and we bought Scott with the change we got from swapping Hayne for Foran.

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Don't forget it's all circular.

 

[Twizzle]

YOU HAVE NO PROOF OF THOSE NUMBERS merkin!!!!

Now your just taking the piss merkin.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Given the increases in the salary cap and the rate at which the top players' salaries are likely to be increasing, you can hardly compare Hayne's salary in 2014 with Foran's salary in 2016 when talking about value. Remember Hayne was off contract as well. His 2016 salary was going to be much bigger than his 2014. When he left he said he's knocked back a deal that would make him the highest paid player in the NRL. Of course, that doesn't mean he would know what others are getting, but I think it's preposterous (or just dishonest) to pretend that Foran's price would even be close to Hayne's if they were both on the market at the same time (as they would have been this year if Hayne had stayed in league).

I'm glad we got Foran but Hayne is the best player I've ever seen. And I've been watching since the 80s.

Don't disagree with that but it doesnt actually change anything that I have said.

All I am saying is that I believe we paid similar for Foran in 2016 than we would have had we still kept Hayne in the team and had to pay him in 2016.

Maybe that means I think we could have kept Hayne for slightly less than he is worth and had to pay Foran slightly more than he is worth to get him to jump ship.

Or at some point Hayne might have stormed into Sharp's office and said:

"Listen Ned Flanders, I am the greatest f**kin player ever to don the blue and gold and the best player in the game at the moment (apart from Thurston...that merkin is good). Anyway, where was I? Oh yeah, give me a shitload or I am going to the Roosters".

Who f**ken knows Pau, who f**ken knows?

 

[emjaycee]

Now your just taking the piss merkin.

You're

 

[emjaycee]

Don't disagree with that but it doesnt actually change anything that I have said.

All I am saying is that I believe we paid similar for Foran in 2016 than we would have had we still kept Hayne in the team and had to pay him in 2016.

Maybe that means I think we could have kept Hayne for slightly less than he is worth and had to pay Foran slightly more than he is worth to get him to jump ship.

Or at some point Hayne might have stormed into Sharp's office and said:

"Listen Ned Flanders, I am the greatest f**kin player ever to don the blue and gold and the best player in the game at the moment (apart from Thurston...that merkin is good). Anyway, where was I? Oh yeah, give me a shitload or I am going to the Roosters".

Who f**ken knows Pau, who f**ken knows?

Spags knows.
Jodeci probably knows.
Merkins on here just wanna know.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Well it is transparent. I'm sure the NRL knows.

As for the fans, what good could possibly come from the fans knowing who earns more than whom?

It would stop these debates for a start and would mean I could get up and have some cereal.

Except we don't have milk.

 

[Gary Gutful]

You're

You are.

 

[Avenger]

I don't think Hayne has committed to anyone in the NRL for 2016. Do you however think that we have approached him for a possible return in 2017 seeing that we have a large number of players off contract for 2017?

 

[phantom eel]

And would he even be worth it in 2017, or a potential disappointment?

Mr Fumbles will have spent two years away from the game, learning a sport/role that is very different to the one where he once excelled, and training his body in ways that aren't suited to his past achievements.

Taking Hayne in 2017 has all the warning signed of a WIll Hopoate-like let down for the club. (And there's no chance Hayne would come back imo, unless he got absolutely no offers from other clubs/codes. The "lifetime agreement" was a media stunt simply so that people stayed onside with his "journey" and all it's potential PR $pinoff$.)

 

[Avenger]

I agree. He would be a risk, however I would take him.

 

[Joshuatheeel]

And would he even be worth it in 2017, or a potential disappointment?

Mr Fumbles will have spent two years away from the game, learning a sport/role that is very different to the one where he once excelled, and training his body in ways that aren't suited to his past achievements.

Taking Hayne in 2017 has all the warning signed of a WIll Hopoate-like let down for the club. (And there's no chance Hayne would come back imo, unless he got absolutely no offers from other clubs/codes. The "lifetime agreement" was a media stunt simply so that people stayed onside with his "journey" and all it's potential PR $pinoff$.)

Don't think Hayne will have any problems coming back and playing at a high level ( but maybe not as good as before, but close) with a good off season. If Players like Carney / Ferguson didnt have many problems coming back after 18 or so months, Hayne won't. And they couldn't even train with a team for 12 months