RHYTHM AND STEALTH
Coach
- Messages
- 11,267
Was it true that Price was on around 140k when he signed for the Warriors
I was just going to say that. I believe if he re-signs then he may be the second highest.CCGenerals said:avsterooster said:bedsy on nothing?
are you crazy
danny buderus is most certainly in the top 2 with johns for newcastle
Well unless he renewed his contract already then I would consider him one of the two highest paid players on the club. His current contract was smade b4 he was making it into all the rep sides so i doubt that his getting paid heaps.
I believe the highest paid players for the Knights is definately Johns and the second player would either be out of Reynoldson, Hughes, Gidley or Simpson. Not to sure but all 4 fo those players are getting way over 200k a year.
Cliffy GC said:dunno about beav
i think Kite would be on more.
Tell you one thing about the beaver
he was practially offered the keys to Parra Leagues by fitzy in 2000 and knocked it back.
Hes the heart and soul of our club.
macavity said:kirk = 220 IIRC....
think about it stranger, WHY would we pay 300 for a BENCH player.... even 220 is a little much...!
RHYTHM AND STEALTH said:Storm Matt Orford and Billy Slater
macavity wrote:
kirk = 220 IIRC....
think about it stranger, WHY would we pay 300 for a BENCH player.... even 220 is a little much...!
Agreed we did pay too much for him. 220k for next 4 years for a benchie is abit worrying. I wonder how much was he playing for at the Storm.
Dunno about Whatuira - Prince and Hodgson probally get more then him
CCGenerals said:macavity said:kirk = 220 IIRC....
think about it stranger, WHY would we pay 300 for a BENCH player.... even 220 is a little much...!
Agreed we did pay too much for him. 220k for next 4 years for a benchie is abit worrying. I wonder how much was he playing for at the Storm.
Johns Magic said:CCGenerals said:macavity said:kirk = 220 IIRC....
think about it stranger, WHY would we pay 300 for a BENCH player.... even 220 is a little much...!
Agreed we did pay too much for him. 220k for next 4 years for a benchie is abit worrying. I wonder how much was he playing for at the Storm.
He won't be on the bench by '05
KimmorleyKiller said:macavity wrote:
kirk = 220 IIRC....
think about it stranger, WHY would we pay 300 for a BENCH player.... even 220 is a little much...!
Agreed we did pay too much for him. 220k for next 4 years for a benchie is abit worrying. I wonder how much was he playing for at the Storm.
if your dumb enough to play him from the bench, fair enough
CCGenerals said:Johns Magic said:CCGenerals said:macavity said:kirk = 220 IIRC....
think about it stranger, WHY would we pay 300 for a BENCH player.... even 220 is a little much...!
Agreed we did pay too much for him. 220k for next 4 years for a benchie is abit worrying. I wonder how much was he playing for at the Storm.
He won't be on the bench by '05
What if he will be? Alot of poeple seem to put his name down on the bench when they list the Knights' line up. And what makes it worse is that he seems to be getting injured more now then he definately wont be on the bench. Anyway I dont have anything against him or the way he plays. I just think we paid to much for him much.