Why of course? From what I understand we offered Fox as much as we could to keep him but KR beat it by some distance. Fair play he chose them. As for Peterson I see no reason why we would suddenly have come into any more money so at best would imagine he was offered the same money that Fox turned down.

thats whats annoying PEtersen is a no better player than fox what we have him for we could have kept Fox. Trust me we offered fox a really poor amount and you cant blame him for going im affraid.

So tell us the figures and how you know then. Also if you read what I put you will see that I put that Peterson would probably only have been offered what Fox turned down so how could we have got him for the same money?

only those 'in the know' would know the figures but I would be very suprised if the money fox wanted to stay was close to the money to get Peterson over from the gold coast and his other extras eg waterside flat etc

Happens a lot in football. Home grown or home national player leaves as not on what he considers fair or enough and club happy to replace him with a more expensive import. Also happens in regular jobs. Companies will reject pay rises of staff and when staff leaves pay a replacement more.

and it is working, at the beginning of the season he stated that his intentions was to finishing at the top of league, and I laughed it off,
I shall hold my hand and say that I was wrong, KR are proving that the tide can turn





and so have we can we keep it up

Shame he can't stop bigging Thaler up, JM is doing a great job but lets just give it time first.

Having talked to Foxes relatives Wakefield had offered him a pittance .....lets say he would not have come under 25 @ £25000 rule by a very long way (he could have made more money playing part time rugby and getting a job in a factory then the full time playing contract Wakefield offered) .....Rovers put him on the 25 @ £25000 when originally signed. From what i gathered Peter took Rovers first offer as it was far more then the offer he received.