Harry Grant
- Thread starter xreedmatic
- Start date
Yes but the roosters use lots of brown paper bags to make that happen.
Sorry kelpie. You and I thinking the same. I posted same comment before I saw yours.
Psycho Doggie
Kennel Immortal
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2014
- Messages
- 18,804
- Reaction score
- 27,185
How many players can anyone name that if you brought them over instead of Harry Grant they would have a bigger impact on the team's fortunes? I can't think of one.
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2014
- Messages
- 24,264
- Reaction score
- 25,928
I think Smith is such a cockhead and he wants it all about him... So Storm win it's fuck yeah baby I went out a winner. If Panthers win he will take the spotlight and focus off them when he does his losers speech and calls it a day.
Moedogg
Kennel Legend
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2012
- Messages
- 13,996
- Reaction score
- 21,206
Lewis
Wakeham
JMK
Montoya
Holland
You bring them over to Melbourne and their fortunes will turn to shit instantly...
Psycho Doggie
Kennel Immortal
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2014
- Messages
- 18,804
- Reaction score
- 27,185
Good catch, I should have specified positive impact
RookieDog
Dogs1
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2009
- Messages
- 1,557
- Reaction score
- 1,745
Very clever reply Moedogg!
Psycho Doggie
Kennel Immortal
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2014
- Messages
- 18,804
- Reaction score
- 27,185
Mmmm, garlic sauce...
Great, now I'm hungry
KiwiDog7
Kennel Immortal
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2016
- Messages
- 16,024
- Reaction score
- 24,730
Harry Grant is a boom footballer for sure but the times I’ve watched him he hasn’t added another dimension in terms of playmaking and general kicking out of dummy half.
He is more of a runner and reminds me of Robert Mears (ex Tiger and Warriors) running style
That said I’d still take him in a heartbeat
I think if it comes down to B Smith and Grant the Storm will take Smith because they already know the feeling of not having him in camp everyday
He is more of a runner and reminds me of Robert Mears (ex Tiger and Warriors) running style
That said I’d still take him in a heartbeat
I think if it comes down to B Smith and Grant the Storm will take Smith because they already know the feeling of not having him in camp everyday
2144superman
Kennel Legend
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2010
- Messages
- 10,367
- Reaction score
- 15,466
I agree with you bro, would the Storm be a better team with Grant? I don't believe so.. B Smith has been the answer for them all season long and is the go-to guy, hence why the Storm allowed Grant to be loaned out to the TigPies in the first place.
Novdoggie
Kennel Enthusiast
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2016
- Messages
- 3,404
- Reaction score
- 4,584
Is Haslet on TK?
Why is $1M being thrown around for this guy.
He hasn't done anything yet other than he has had a breakout year but how many players suffer the second year syndrome and never come back from it?
At best he is only worth 500k...at best.
I know we need a number nine but not at ridiculous dollars at least until he has proven himself over a few years in the NRL.
Why is $1M being thrown around for this guy.
He hasn't done anything yet other than he has had a breakout year but how many players suffer the second year syndrome and never come back from it?
At best he is only worth 500k...at best.
I know we need a number nine but not at ridiculous dollars at least until he has proven himself over a few years in the NRL.
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2019
- Messages
- 15,970
- Reaction score
- 19,228
B. Smith more versatile and can be used off the bench/forwards. You can't say the same for Grant (can only play hooker). I think that's why he was loaned out. Grant is the better player to build a club around imo. Unless C. Smith played halfback Grant would of got little to no game time. I think the Storm will back Grant next year if C. Smith retires.
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2019
- Messages
- 15,970
- Reaction score
- 19,228
We're a struggling team so we don't get players for what they're worth. 600-700k would be fair for a team like us atm. JAC is the best winger in the world so he's probaby worth around 500k. That means that's the price a top team would like to pick JAC up at. If you're JAC you need to decide whether you want 500k playing for the Rabbitohs who can finish top four and go deep into the finals or 700k for the Bulldogs where they're battling to be in contention for the eight (currently we're no where near, potentially with the right recruits).
Ant2611
Kennel Enthusiast
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2009
- Messages
- 2,555
- Reaction score
- 2,216
yeh im sure he could take cam smiths position.
I think we actually had him and at the last second penrith got him and he reneged on us... not much we could have done... in hindsight he's made the right choice I suppose...
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2016
- Messages
- 13,327
- Reaction score
- 8,931
Pay begged to throw him an extra 50 after but the board said no
Alan79
Kennel Legend
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2007
- Messages
- 13,537
- Reaction score
- 19,964
This overs and unders bullshit totally voids the ideals of having a salary cap. It's supposed to spread talent evenly. The salary cap isn't useful at all unless the team that puts in the highest value bid gets the player. But it's currently being exploited by a number of clubs that you would assume are cheating to create a bigger gap in roster quality than was present before the cap was put in place.
I can't honestly say I'd like to see players forced to play for a club that is in a location where they don't want to live. Generally for a couple of hundred thousand though it's a sacrifice they should be willing to make. But it doesn't sit well with me or anyone who supports a club struggling to attract talent to frequently see the best players scalped from them to supposedly play for unders to make a top four club even stronger.
You don't have to go back far in time to see that Parramatta were caught cheating the cap while they were in the running for a third successive wooden spoon. This happened when a few clubs had squads that had rosters where the minimum of half their run on team were either current rep players, recent rep players or in contention for rep duties in the near future.
To top that all off these same powerhouse clubs had the audacity to complain that they needed to have byes or split rounds because of an exodus of rep players at origin time.
In simple terms, if they institute a rule where taking Unders was limited to maybe 25k below what the highest bidder offered it would eventually mean that even the club's that were cheating the cap could at best only offer $25k times 30 players $750k in total to buy a couple of good quality players for $375k each). As it is we regularly hear that the roosters etc can offer $100k-$200k less on numerous players. Let's just say that 12 players of their top 30 were on $125k Unders on average ($1.5 million total gets you three shit hot players outside of spine positions or two top of the line spine players).
In summary- The salary cap can never fulfill it's purpose while this concept of teams paying unders and overs exists. A rule needs to be implemented whereby the unders or overs was limited to a reasonably small amount.
Alan79
Kennel Legend
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2007
- Messages
- 13,537
- Reaction score
- 19,964
Keep seeing people say that with zero evidence.