slotmachine
First Grade
- Messages
- 7,372
Lolo is one of those guys who has no real loyalty to his teams and is going to take the best $$ he can get
That would be why he knocked back the Warriors in 2015 and cost himself $800k over two years.
Lolo is one of those guys who has no real loyalty to his teams and is going to take the best $$ he can get
That would be why he knocked back the Warriors in 2015 and cost himself $800k over two years.
Signing Scott is a giant risk. He's turning 33, was a shadow of his former self this season and has a crook back. You're paying for the player he was. Spend a bit more and aim for his team mate who is the best forward in the comp.
Dunno about a huge risk if it's only a 2 year deal. He still goes pretty good. Would prefer 'lolo, but will take what we can get. Scott is a good hard old head.Signing Scott is a giant risk. He's turning 33, was a shadow of his former self this season and has a crook back. You're paying for the player he was. Spend a bit more and aim for his team mate who is the best forward in the comp.
Signing Scott is a giant risk. He's turning 33, was a shadow of his former self this season and has a crook back. You're paying for the player he was. Spend a bit more and aim for his team mate who is the best forward in the comp.
Signing Scott is a giant risk. He's turning 33, was a shadow of his former self this season and has a crook back. You're paying for the player he was. Spend a bit more and aim for his team mate who is the best forward in the comp.
Matt Scott would have the same immediate effect that Craig smith had when he joined our club.
Although I'm not sure about the 1.5million over two years figure...that's an awful lot of money for a player in his early 30s