What I am about to say does not reflect of the ability of the three players I will name. It is more a general comment about an affliction our club has had in recent years: Paying overs.
We paid $420, 000 for Corey Norman or about double what he was on at the Broncs. I believe we are paying $450, 000 for previous fringe first-grader Darcy Lussick. We paid $800,000 for Hoppa which, in any sober estimation, is massive overs. Most fans would agree Lussick has been a success in an unsuccessful side. Let's presume Norman and Hoppa become successes, too. All's rosy,. hey? Except come contract renewal time, all will expect a pay rise. And that rise will be focused around the false base of the overs we paid for them to come. You can see the potential strain this could place on our salary cap versus the risk of losing key players. Compare this with Kristain Inu who is at the Dogs on something like $225, 000 substantial unders, in most estimations. Of course it is easier for top sides to pay unders or fair market value. But what I am saying is we should be prepared to pass on a player if the bidding gets too steep. I have used the analogy before of a poker games. Experienced poker players will know exactly what I am saying.
Replies
I agree EE but any success is going to be short-lived if we pay heaps of overs. We will end up going backwards come contract renewal time. And we will struggle to retain out youngsters because that is where we will be trying to make up the shortfall. The Broncos asked young prop Dunamis Lui to take a 20% pay cut. Lui said bye-bye, I am off to Manly.
Where are you getting these figures from and how sure can you be that they are accurate. I doubt we are paying 450 for Lussick. Yes agreed we would be paying more than other clubs would for them but these sort of figures would surely have us cheating the salary cap come next year.
I do know what your saying, but if we improve our appeal as a place to come to by performing and proving to be a pleasant work environment, then we can start to dig our heels in and say take it or leave it.
It similar situation in sales, you offer great discount or thrown in freebies the first time to win a customer over, only problem is they expect it every time after that. Not sustainable.
Hi timbodavo
Zero Tackle which also says we are paying Hayne only $500 grand. I know the Norman figure is right and I reckon the Inu one would be, given the circumstances of his coming to the Dogs.I was most surprised at the Lussick figure.
yeh don't believe everything you read, especially from that place. Hayne is on more than 500 for sure. I reckon that Norman figure would be exaggerated too. Surely we would not be paying that much for him or Lussick. Having said that I am only speculating, just as zero tackle is. So who really knows. At end of the day we are paying overs, price you pay for shit player recruitment, management and double spoons though. I don't know if it would be as over as they are claiming though. If there figures are right perhaps we are going to be next team accused of brown paper bags once you include the rest of the squad.
The Norman contract was widely reported when it was signed. I think Zero Tackle gets their figures from media reports and perhaps some inside info. But is only a few players they have figures for so they could be reasonably reliable. We probably did sign Hayne a few years ago at 500k which was a huge amount just a few years ago. ( I fell off my chair when I read 550k for Sandow) I don't doubt Hayne had had his contract upgraded since but I doubt it is anywhere near the million we sometimes hear about.
Ye i agree pete if we are payimg them overs then other clubs will have to pay more than overs to buy these players.
Not sure if that thought makes sense but it's the best I can put it in a hurry.