Signings

[butt monkey]

Fraggle posted:

The big thing in Goulding's favour is cost, he's going to be much cheaper than many of the alternatives and like every team, we need some of these younger, cheaper players to offset the expense of your Barrett's and Fielden's.

But Fielden and Barrett are already under this years salary cap, we are on about next year, when some of our expensive contracted players leave. Are you just saying that we should "bank the money" saved, and not strengthen the Team/Squad????

[butt monkey]

butt monkey posted:

Fraggle posted:

The big thing in Goulding's favour is cost, he's going to be much cheaper than many of the alternatives and like every team, we need some of these younger, cheaper players to offset the expense of your Barrett's and Fielden's.

But Fielden and Barrett are already under this years salary cap, we are on about next year, when some of our expensive contracted players leave. Are you just saying that we should "bank the money" saved, and not strengthen the Team/Squad????

Good players cost money you know!!!!!!





The know the old saying - you pay peanuts.............you get monkeys.

[Fraggle]

butt monkey posted:

Fraggle posted:

The big thing in Goulding's favour is cost, he's going to be much cheaper than many of the alternatives and like every team, we need some of these younger, cheaper players to offset the expense of your Barrett's and Fielden's.

But Fielden and Barrett are already under this years salary cap, we are on about next year, when some of our expensive contracted players leave. Are you just saying that we should "bank the money" saved, and not strengthen the Team/Squad????

Not at all. I'm saying that it is not possible for us to have 17 top-rated players, particularly when we've got a couple of very expensive players in Barrett and Fielden (and I agree that to get such players you need to pay good money). But there's only a limited amount of money in the pot, and to get a couple more great players, whoever they may be, we need to balance that with younger, cheaper players with great potential, and Goulding certainly has that. The likes of him, Prescott, O'Carroll, McIllorum and Hansen are important in giving us space to sign another powerful prop, or highly-rated fullback. All of those players (although possibly a bit early to say for McIllorum) have shown they are more than capable of competing in SL, so we should retain them and use the money for other areas where we are definitely deficient.

Yes, we've got some other expensive players coming off contract, and Fletcher and DV will save us lots of money but we'll need money for a fullback (Ashton might not even be in the 20/25 quota) and another centre to replace DV/Withers. Since we also need another prop, most of the money that we save with the players leaving should already be going on those 3 key positions. There might not be enough left for a 2nd new top-class centre.

[Fraggle]

butt monkey posted:

butt monkey posted:

Fraggle posted:

The big thing in Goulding's favour is cost, he's going to be much cheaper than many of the alternatives and like every team, we need some of these younger, cheaper players to offset the expense of your Barrett's and Fielden's.

But Fielden and Barrett are already under this years salary cap, we are on about next year, when some of our expensive contracted players leave. Are you just saying that we should "bank the money" saved, and not strengthen the Team/Squad????

Good players cost money you know!!!!!!





The know the old saying - you pay peanuts.............you get monkeys.

Indeed, and we've not got enough money in the salary cap to get an entire team of good players costing money. As for the "paying peanutes... getting monkeys", that might be true for players being brought in but for our own kids that we're bringing through, they start off earning peanuts when they get in the first team squad but the vast majority seem to successfully step up and show themselves more-than-capable of playing with and against far better paid players.

[DaveO]

Fraggle posted:

Indeed, and we've not got enough money in the salary cap to get an entire team of good players costing money. As for the "paying peanutes... getting monkeys", that might be true for players being brought in but for our own kids that we're bringing through, they start off earning peanuts when they get in the first team squad but the vast majority seem to successfully step up and show themselves more-than-capable of playing with and against far better paid players.

Saints have had Long, Cunningham, Sculthorpe, Lyon, Cayless and other top class players all in the same side.

None of them are cheap to employ.

If you are realistic our top class players for next season are going to be Fielden, Barrett (who took a pay cut from his NRL wages to come here). The next tier down will be Calders, Richards, Baily, Higham and the like.

What I am saying is even with the salary cap we should be able to afford more than two players who are considered out and out class.

I get a bit fed up of reading some poeple (not you) preach "We ought to get three average players instead of King (or whovever)".

They forget you can only pay 20 players over £25K so do the math, knock off a couple of 100 K for the acadeny wages, knock off £125 K for the 5 first team players who do not earn over £25K and you still have a pretty high average wage for the top 20 players. £78,000 each or thereabouts.

Given some will earn more than others we should easily be able to tempt and afford at least one more class player without upsetting the wage structure of the club given who is leaving.

Dave

[butt monkey]

Fraggle posted:

butt monkey posted:

Fraggle posted:

The big thing in Goulding's favour is cost, he's going to be much cheaper than many of the alternatives and like every team, we need some of these younger, cheaper players to offset the expense of your Barrett's and Fielden's.

But Fielden and Barrett are already under this years salary cap, we are on about next year, when some of our expensive contracted players leave. Are you just saying that we should "bank the money" saved, and not strengthen the Team/Squad????

Not at all. I'm saying that it is not possible for us to have 17 top-rated players, particularly when we've got a couple of very expensive players in Barrett and Fielden (and I agree that to get such players you need to pay good money). But there's only a limited amount of money in the pot, and to get a couple more great players, whoever they may be, we need to balance that with younger, cheaper players with great potential, and Goulding certainly has that. The likes of him, Prescott, O'Carroll, McIllorum and Hansen are important in giving us space to sign another powerful prop, or highly-rated fullback. All of those players (although possibly a bit early to say for McIllorum) have shown they are more than capable of competing in SL, so we should retain them and use the money for other areas where we are definitely deficient.

Yes, we've got some other expensive players coming off contract, and Fletcher and DV will save us lots of money but we'll need money for a fullback (Ashton might not even be in the 20/25 quota) and another centre to replace DV/Withers. Since we also need another prop, most of the money that we save with the players leaving should already be going on those 3 key positions. There might not be enough left for a 2nd new top-class centre.

Question for you then Fraggle, what percentage of the released Salary Cap, from players released/retired/sold, do you feel, we will have spent on the two unconfirmed (as yet) signings?

Leaving roughly what percentage for??????