And will be even more delighted to read your posts?

His market value is way way beyond 200K, so why did they accept it?

I didn't hear of a rival bid from the NRL.

Why was it?

It may have been from a SL club, but it seems clear both that Sam did not want to go to another SL club and that the Bulls would not anyway countenance that. Therefore his SL "market value" is zero - or better to say, maybe, "not applicable" - since he was not in the market. Was he?

Sam DID want to go to the NRL, and could have left for the NRL at the end of next season as a free agent, with a host of club chasing his signature. And it seems pretty clear (I would suggest) he would have been one very unhappy bunny had he not been allowed to break his contract a year early. An Aussie club came in - pretty well without precedent - with an offer of a transfer fee. That transfer fee offer WAS his market value, since otherwise he would likely have been going nowhere and would have left anyway for nothing end of next season. Maybe having performed like he did first 2/3 of this season, at best?

Now I'm quite happy for someone to improve on my argument and educate me on the workings of the market. Just so long as it reflects the actual situation and not some hypothetical situation of willing buyer and willing seller in SL, which situation did not exist.

Considering what we have in return got for our 200K (ie, SFA) keeping Sam for another year and letting him go for free would have been a better bit of business.

Maybe so. But that is a different argument to the discussion we were just having, which was about Sam allegedly having been sold for a fraction of his market value. Isn't it?

But, having taken it as read that the "market value" question has now been resolved, yes I think in your follow-up argument you make a fair point that warrants serious debate.

The answer probably hinges on whether Sam would have taken it on the chin and given his all, or taken his bat home, I'd say? I really don't know which it would have been, although I did seriously wonder whether Sam's indifferent (by his standards) performances earlier in the season reflected a bit of the latter? Or, maybe more to the point, serious uncertainty at least? And I feel sure his manager (what cut did he get?) will have had very strong and persuasive arguments for Sam in favour of a move?

Had he have been compelled to stay for another year, what performances would we have seen? I don't know the answer to that and I doubt neither does anyone else on here? Had we been sure that Sam would give his best - and that neither his manager nor anyone else would seek to detract him from doing just that - then most definitely I would have wanted to keep him. But Sam's own comments after the deal was announced strongly alluded to the "uncertainty" having affected his game. So its all down to what might have been?

Souths have 200k to splash. We don't.

Took Halley himself long enough.

Where has the money gone then?

Scully (jnr) has just bought a big fat Merc . . . . . .

We do now though don't we?
What are we going to spend it on?
Nothing by all accounts.

Peter Hood's doing backstroke through a swmming pool of gold coins like Scrooge McDuck.

The money has been paid into the Bulls' bank account, oddly enough, and that's where it will remain, until the Bulls decide that there is somebody available and willing to come to Odsal, who is worth spending some or all of it on.

Most are unavailable.

Many would not come.

Many are not worth it.

Meaning.. it's going on the broken drainage system next time it breaks

Optimism for a lot less wear and tear now that Solomona's gone



Interesting that the "final" result of the poll seems to be that 27% want Mac out for one reason or another and the remaining 73%, er, don't.

I don't want him out. I would like some decent players signing though or yet again he is going to carry the can for next season's poor performances.

54% Not happy with Mac. Hardly a mandate for change. Methinks things will be different 10 games into the season...

Groundhog day or what

Well actually the 10 games thing was misleading last year. If you counted the Challenge Cup Macca should have walked but did he not produce a win over Leeds in game 11? In many peoples eyes (not living in Scotland

) this win made up for our poor start so we have to think carefully what criteria should be used to judge him in the first 10 games. I don't think we can do that until the fixture list is out. Circumstance may dictate that 11 games is a fairer measure if several of the first 10 are against quality teams.

IMO he should deliver at least 9 league points in this period to stay but as I say lets wait and see what the fixture list is like.

Also we may have to cut him some slack if England win the 4 nations and players come out with statements like 'Macca masterminded our victory' etc

i'd be happy for mcnamara to stay if we're competing in the top 8 of the table. a good cup run is nice but not expected, especially after our mixed season just gone.

at what point do the board start looking at other options though? we're talking about giving mcnamara a new deal like he would want to sign it.

Tbh the board should be monitoring the availability of all coaches now in case the slide continues. I'd imagine they will be speaking to people more openly if we start the season badly. I wouldn't offer Mac a new contract unless we are comfortably in top 8 at the end of July

A lot of the early wins last season came at a point where they papered over the cracks. At least for a week or so.

If we start next season the same as this season then McNamara should do the right thing, admit he hasn't got what it takes, and walk away

well the rumoured opening fixtures Ive been txtd are:-

cas a
sal h
hud a
hull fc h
celt h
wire a
leeds a
wake h

if those are anything like correct then we'll have played wire,hudds and leeds by round 8 and should have a decent idea how were stacking up

dont matter who u play or when you play em.

Macca will be praising the footie gods again if that is our start