Well I am only quoting what was in the press, just like you are doing right now.
No, you are selectively quoting from the press.
You omitted that the reported $50,000 was for less than half a season. Plus you omitted that it was plus match payments.
There are other key differences between the two players:
1. The age differences, Inglis is six years younger than Gasnier. This is worth nothing because there is now talk of Inglis going to Union. Gasnier was returning from Union. Gasnier is in the back-end of his career when compared to Inglis.
2. Getting Gasnier back from Union was good for rugby league, the NRL should do what they can to keep Inglis, but Inglis first has to be signed to a legit contract.
3. Gasnier is a local St George junior. Inglis is not a South junior. Only a small thing but it does come into play with fans and marketing, and this becomes part of the negotiation as well.
Gasnier tried very hard to stay in the NRL. It remains to be seen if Inglis will make the same effort. The NRL and St George had some third party deals in place. But these did not eventuate. One thing I agree with is a player's right to find maximum income (as long as no contract in broken). As far as I can tell, this the only thing Gasnier and Inglis have in common.
Ziggy the God said:
Gasnier has third party payments, so how about we open those up to the public? Lets face it, someone on here would know more about me on FOI information, and considering the millions that the Saints have sucked off the taxpayer teat in Wollongong and Kogorah, we have the right to know.
Getting a bit testy aren't we?
You still fail to see that the it is third party payments that have to be looked at. If they are within the rules, then there is no problem.
Ziggy the God said:
Maybe old Barry can get an email, since all they get down that way is scummer Labor support.
lol. You just lost the argument.
Old Barry (whoever he is) is even less relevant - you should have stuck to your lame attempts of comparing Inglis to Gasnier. You sounded less defensive then.
Let's get a handle on this...
You are using the Gasnier example as some sort of strange justification for the Souths/Inglis debacle, when in fact the two are like chalk and cheese.
You will whinge if Inglis cannot be signed by Souths, we get that. And you will try to use the Gasnier example again, even though it is entirely irrelevant. We get that too. Plus in a strange twist, when totally cornered, you will eventually say it is not about Saints when others come in to correct you. Predictable as.
