Poupou Escobar
Post Whore
- Messages
- 91,334
That's right. There's only so many play-the-balls against a broken defensive line. If you're going to let your dummy half take them he better be very good. That doesn't describe Mahoney.
Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
That's right. There's only so many play-the-balls against a broken defensive line. If you're going to let your dummy half take them he better be very good. That doesn't describe Mahoney.
Could've been the initial offer.
All those sources are just repeating an initial source. In the industry we call it circular reporting.
Do you think the Dogs were that desperate or out of touch?
No, there's certainly a lot of that that goes on but not all of them. If that were true we wouldn't now have an article reporting three years. And we would have a succession of articles after that reporting three years. But as yet none. So when we have dozens of articles citing four years, and one article citing three years, they don't deserve equal weight.
I think $800k per year is far too much, even for the Dogs. But being in salary cap trouble they might've backended his contract and $800k could be the final year or two to make up for a more reasonable initial 2023 amount. This is how media sources can report things simplistically and miss all the nuance. A contract for $500k/$650k/$650k/$800k could be reported as $500k/year or $800k/year. If the final year is a player or club option they might even report the number of years differently. The main point is don't believe what you read in the media. It is intended to stir you up. But using common sense, the Dogs would've had to make a stupid offer to entice him away from our club. He certainly wasn't swayed by the opportunity to learn from Barrett.
The new claim, in ONE article, is that it's 800 a year over three years. Far out of line with what most of us thought his value was and what dozens of articles reported. So what's more likely? That the dozens of articles and the hundreds or thousands of fans were way off, or that this ONE article might have an error?
Yeah I noticed that and thought the same. I get that people want to defend the club against attacks but this is just silly.
Well if you disagree with this article it should convince you not to believe what you read about player contracts. If it forces you to double down on whatever you believed before it shows a clear bias or agenda on your part.
It should convince me to believe that some claims about player contracts aren't true. Because obviously both couldn't be true. But I already knew that I shouldn't automatically believe that stuff. What we're left with is dozens of reports versus a single report. Call me crazy but I feel pretty confident going with the dozens.
I saw him at Redcliff shops.
No they aren't all reporting the same source as in many of the articles the numbers vary slightly. And these are articles from journalists who have sources, not just copying each other. The one thing they all agree on is the length of the deal.
