Lynne Anderson directly quoted yesterday in saying that we never made a formal offer to Latrell Mitchell and he has never spoken with Andrew Hill or Dean Pay. Joey Manu re-signed with the Roosters for unders for only 2 years. Pretty obvious he didn't receive a longer offer too good to refuse from us
It's fairly f..king obvious to any Dogs fan I would have thought that we need "at minimum" 1 outside back for 2021 to upgrade the position currently filled by Holland/Montoya/Harper yet I'm F..KING AMAZED our board / management never even made a direct offer it seems to 2 of the best young centres in the world - from the Premiership winning team who were both available for 2021. That f..king does it / does them for me. If you think the board have done a good job because they extended DWZ for a few years and Lewis for an extra year then you're too easily f..king pleased sorry. What's left for 2021 now already ? The SCRAPS. They're sitting around sitting on their f..king hands obviously and if they're not thrown out at the election in February then don't complain when we're just scraping into the 8 "maybe" in 5 years time.
Blah blah.
So ... the club should come out and say we've been talking to Mitchell for months even though legally we're not allowed to? Really? What else do you expect them to say? And if negotiations have broken down, which it looks like they may have, will they come out and say it? Or simply just deny everything? The latter would 'save face' a bit, wouldn't it?
Why should he receive an offer from us too good for him to refuse? Why?
I don't understand your fixation, and the other Brads, with the need to pay massive overs to a player. To pretty much give them the key to Belmore and allow them to do anything and everything they want. Why?
Yes, we need a player in his position. Yes, it would be beneficial for us if he signed. Yes it would. He's a very good player. He's young. His best years are most likely in front of him. No one is debating this.
But at the same time why would we have to "give him an offer too good to refuse"? That's underselling us as a club. Now and in the future. It sends a sign that we will pay overs. All those contracts we're currently negotiating with players will have an increase of X amount because of it. Any future players looking to come over will automatically ask for X amount more because of it. I just don't understand why some people ( the Brads) can't see that. It's not as simple a just "giving him an offer he can't refuse" and it's incredibly naive / stupid / whatever if you think it is.
I know what you're going to say. Need to pay overs to get the best players. We're not attractive so we need to pay overs. No one's arguing that and I think the Dogs have offered him a pretty decent amount of money.
But here's another scenario for you ...
What if Mitchell was keen on us but not that keen. We offered X more money which satisfied him. But then other clubs offered more money. He wanted more then from us. We offer more money. He's satisfied. Then the same process. Again. And. Again.
At what point do you say ... he's chasing money and not buying into our club, traditions, history? At what point do you say enough is enough? We all know we need to pay overs. But there needs to be a point when you say we've done everything we can. It's up to you now to show you want to play for us.