: Sun Mar 15, 2009 6:13 pm  

Agent Mulder wrote:

That was a Saints fan ringing up saying he had heard a rumour that he was coming to us and that Meli was staying over in aus. Rumours soon spread.

: Sun Mar 15, 2009 6:29 pm  

Agent Mulder wrote:

That was a Saints fan ringing up saying he had heard a rumour that he was coming to us and that Meli was staying over in aus. Rumours soon spread.

Thats a variation on the rumour i started re Melis absence being a conspiracy theory to enable us to sign Lyon after the WCC.

: Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:10 pm  

tm - tl wrote:

Why? No wonder your post count is so high,offer debate rather than one word answers!

Sorry I was just on my way out and didn't have time to write a long answer!

I just think for the wage he would want it would use up to big a part of our salary cap for a player who is far from at his best at the moment and from what I have see doesn't seem to show the brilliance often enough to make him worth the risk.

I would rather we used the money on developing our own players personally.

: Sun Mar 15, 2009 10:47 pm  

Maybe we could offer Meli in a swap deal where we keep paying Meli his wages and Dire get to pay King [/i]

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:48 am  

I'm off the impression the King was always a centre in club rugby. There was a period, at the end of last season, following his ropey start, where he seemed to have picked up and was scoring tries and making an impact(although that seems to have dissappeared again).

However, this impact appears to be based on straight line running onto good distribution rather than the more creative approach of a Matt Gidley or Martin Gleeson, and given that our distribution out wide (Pryce) isn't a forte, I was suggest that he'd continue to struggle to find form at saints.

Plus, he does look ropey in defence.

So no, I wouldn't sign him. Not as a centre anyways.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 10:21 am  

There is some underlying problem with Matt King. He hasnt become a bad player overnight so one has to assume he his homesick or not happy.

He was bona fide world class during his melbourne days and this wasnt down to the players around him

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 10:43 am  

gateaux wrote:

I would rather we used the money on developing our own players personally.

Why is it that people think that you just have to divert money towards young players and suddenly you start bringing through quality?

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 10:48 am  

saintc wrote:

Why is it that people think that you just have to divert money towards young players and suddenly you start bringing through quality?

It's kind of a screwed up Wigan principle.

Wigan are: If it costs us a lot of money then it's obviously going to win us stuff.

Others are: If it is young and costs us a lot fo money then it is obviously going to win us stuff.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 10:50 am  

saintc wrote:

Why is it that people think that you just have to divert money towards young players and suddenly you start bringing through quality?

No I think we work on a salary cap and to pay the wages he would probably want would take up a lot of money that could be used elsewhere for players who would hopefully perform as well - or better - and would probably benefit the club a lot more in the future.

However the money involved is just part of the reason I wouldn't want him, I am not convinced he is good enough at all regardless of cost.

Re: Matt King : Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:25 am  

Rommel wrote:

I don't think the wages he'll be commanding at Wire could be given at Saints i reckon he's the highest paid player in superleague.
Saying that he's a good player at a pish poor club and a new enviroment for him could bring back the old Matt King who was superb in the NRL

I reckon he's not the highest paid player at Warrinton, never mind SL.