Angus Crichton

Just reading that Angus is taking a pay cut to remain at the Roosters.This is now the third time in the last few months that I have read this regarding Roosters players,firstly Teddy,,then Keary now Angus. The fact that they even have to keep feeding us this BS story every time they sign or re sign someone just makes it harder to believe. These guys are throwing away 200k per year to stay loyal to a club that is not even their junior club,yeah right? 

You need to be a member of 1Eyed Eel to add comments!

Join 1Eyed Eel

Votes: 0
Email me when people reply –

Replies

    • What's "market value" ?

  • Not even their junior club ?
    What does that have to do with anything ?
    On top of that, Tedesco is now asking for top dollar on his next contract, $1.3m per year, doesn’t sound like he’s throwing any money away

    • Brett, as you would now Market value is the value the market (NRL clubs) would be offering. The point being we have seen other players not allowed to do this over the years. 

      • Who's not been allowed to do that ?

        Let's not bring up Israel Folau again please, that was in 2013, two NRL administrations ago. Hardly relevant.

        No, market value is the price that the two parties agree is mutually acceptable. If Angus Crichton is happy to play for the Roosters on the minimum, then that is a market value. Someone else might value him higher, but he doesn't have to accept that valuation.

        • Does that notion condradict what happened to Hayne?Didnt he agree to play for less but was made to accept 'market value'?

        • No, Thats your view Brett.

          • Bingo! 

          • Yes it is, but you talk as if there is a definitive thing as market value, when in fact there isn't.

            • OK, no worries.

        • This reply was deleted.
          • The problem with that is that clubs can then offer stupid salaries to establish a higher notional value. 

This reply was deleted.

More stuff to read

Muttman replied to EelsAgeMe's discussion The Lomax Case: What Are We Missing?
"It's now out of the NRL's hands. If the court says the conditions of the release are valid and still stand then that is that. The NRL can't stomp all over the Eels' legal rights.  Lomax told the Eels in writing he was proceeding with the Storm…"
1 hour ago
EelsAgeMe replied to EelsAgeMe's discussion The Lomax Case: What Are We Missing?
"You'd think it's in the NRL's best interest to be on Parra's side here. If they take the side of Lomax then every player contract means nothing. This is bigger than a single case- it could open up a world where players do whatever they want,…"
1 hour ago
Eelovution replied to EelsAgeMe's discussion The Lomax Case: What Are We Missing?
"When the announcement was made by the Eels regarding the dispute with Lomax, the club made a very important note in their commentary- the agreement was made in 'Good Faith'. This is a very important principle in legal agreements- both parties agree…"
3 hours ago
RB replied to EelsAgeMe's discussion The Lomax Case: What Are We Missing?
"Yeah, but does that count if the opportunity never eventuated, is what I think they'll argue"
3 hours ago
More…