Joined: Apr 29 2010 Posts: 585 Location: In two minds
cheekydiddles wrote:Leeds agreed terms with Westerman but wouldn't agree to £150k transfer fee Hull were demanding. Leeds were hoping Hull would lower their fee but in meantime Warrington agreed to meet your £150k transfer fee valuation so that's where he's ended up. Leeds wanted Westerman for some reason (I can't work out why) but not at the price Hull were demanding.
IF this is correct, then it is a very good bit of business by Pearson.
I agree, if we did get £150k for Westerman then it's top dollar (above top dollar IMHO) but as we all know what is said out loud is all speculation, without any hard facts that's all it will ever be including how much Lees were supposedly offering/not offering.
Even if AP comes out and tells us it's X I wouldn't believe a word given some of the carp that comes out of his mouth. It's easy to say we got £xxxx (overinflated figure) in a club announcement without it being actually true but it would certainly ensure fans are more forgiving/accepting than say if it were a much lower figure that's for sure, we certainly couldn't disprove it without being able to look at the books. It's the fact I've heard lots of nonsense/abject lies coming out of APs mouth that I for one can't take what he is saying as the truth anymore.
Either way i still don't think we could have kept Westerman and be under the cap, I stated as much 2-3 months ago
Mild mannered Janitor wrote:Why has he strung people along??
This is the bit your are not explaining.
As has been mentioned, circumstances change and we are loaded up in the forwards. We play in a salary capped sport, something has to give. We have no idea as to when Warringtons interest became a genuine bid. For all we know this could have been 3 months ago or 2 weeks ago.
ATEOTD, it really doesn't matter. If you base a decision whether to attend or not based on what the owner comes out with then that puts you in a fairly unique position.
That question will be easily answered when we find out if a wedge of salary cap has suddenly become available. if it has then I've no issues with us selling him. If we've already spent it on manu then the owner has been lying out of his ass
To be fair to Pearson it would not strengthen his negotiating position if he announced we needed to offload Westerman to get under the salary cap (which seems quite likely to me)
Getting anything over 100k for Westerman is fantastic business IMO.
handbrake wrote:To be fair to Pearson it would not strengthen his negotiating position if he announced we needed to offload Westerman to get under the salary cap (which seems quite likely to me)
Getting anything over 100k for Westerman is fantastic business IMO.
I don't disagree but just don't say anything. Thinking about it, presume we must be under the cap with westerman in there or the RFL wouldn't have allowed us to register manu (unless he isn't yet registered)
Joined: Mar 14 2003 Posts: 25977 Location: Back in Hull.
handbrake wrote:To be fair to Pearson it would not strengthen his negotiating position if he announced we needed to offload Westerman to get under the salary cap (which seems quite likely to me)
Getting anything over 100k for Westerman is fantastic business IMO.
Jake the Peg wrote:I don't disagree but just don't say anything. Thinking about it, presume we must be under the cap with westerman in there or the RFL wouldn't have allowed us to register manu (unless he isn't yet registered)
........... so
Jake the Peg wrote: If we've already spent it on manu then the owner has been lying out of his ass
is less likely. Thank goodness for that.
Is Hodgson the new Griffin, or is it all about pace?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
