Re: WESTERMAN SIGNING CONFIRMED : Mon Nov 01, 2010 12:15 am  

World of Redboy wrote:

There is no logic where Agar and coaching is concerned. Westerman is a panic buy.

panic buy, well see who is gonna have to panic buy has mason got his visa yet

Re: WESTERMAN SIGNING CONFIRMED : Mon Nov 01, 2010 4:56 am  

World of Redboy wrote:

There is no logic where Agar and coaching is concerned. Westerman is a panic buy.

Well i very much doubt it, but if we ever did at least we can afford to

Re: WESTERMAN SIGNING CONFIRMED : Mon Nov 01, 2010 7:48 am  

Robbo4 wrote:

Its a good job I haven't said that then. I could give you loads of examples of players I would have tried to get but its all irrelevant as I have no idea how much it would cost to get them and just how much money was available for a fee. My point was always about priorities and spending one of our biggest ever transfer fees on a player that realistically isn't going to solve our biggest problem (not scoring enough points) doesn't make much sense to me, particularly if it effects our recruitment. At no point have I said Westerman isn't good enough or that we should have signed someone "better". I really do think people are clutching at straws if they think having Westerman at 13 will suddenly solve all our attacking problems though. The major issue is going to be having 2 fit halfbacks on the pitch for the majority of the season which I dont see happening unfortunately and I can see us all having the same discussions about it yet again next season.

I'm not convinced westerman will be a great signing, however he has the potential to be. He's not a priority for next season but would likely be from 2012 onwards. Over 4 years, the fee is only £40k extra a year and maybe we'd have had to pay that to secure him when he was on the open market anyway.

I would have preferred to get a half back in but if there's none available then I'm happy that we've tied up one of the country's best prospects for the next 4 years

Re: WESTERMAN SIGNING CONFIRMED : Mon Nov 01, 2010 8:26 am  

Jake the Peg wrote:

Over 4 years, the fee is only £40k extra a year and maybe we'd have had to pay that to secure him when he was on the open market anyway.

Good point you make, i would prob say 20k or more a season at least, then taking into account the loss of that to the cap, its not as bad as it seems

Re: WESTERMAN SIGNING CONFIRMED : Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:00 am  

Hutchie wrote:

Good point you make, i would prob say 20k or more a season at least, then taking into account the loss of that to the cap, its not as bad as it seems

Unless he'd had a really good year I doubt his wages would have gone up that dramatically, especially when you take it account he will have almost certainly got a pay rise when joining us anyway. Wouldn't we have had to pay a fee anyway based on his age?

Re: WESTERMAN SIGNING CONFIRMED : Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:11 am  

Robbo4 wrote:

Unless he'd had a really good year I doubt his wages would have gone up that dramatically, especially when you take it account he will have almost certainly got a pay rise when joining us anyway. Wouldn't we have had to pay a fee anyway based on his age?

Yes, also if available for a much less fee, would anyone have been confident that we would have signed him a head Leeds, Saints and Warrington?

Hull have done what they needed to do, we where rumoured to have bid for Myler a couple of times, and maybe we have put bids in for other halfbacks.

I still think we where weak at the prop position, so this move should really strenthen that position with Fitz moving there.

Re: WESTERMAN SIGNING CONFIRMED : Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:47 am  

Robbo4 wrote:

Its a good job I haven't said that then. I could give you loads of examples of players I would have tried to get but its all irrelevant as I have no idea how much it would cost to get them and just how much money was available for a fee. My point was always about priorities and spending one of our biggest ever transfer fees on a player that realistically isn't going to solve our biggest problem (not scoring enough points) doesn't make much sense to me, particularly if it effects our recruitment. At no point have I said Westerman isn't good enough or that we should have signed someone "better". I really do think people are clutching at straws if they think having Westerman at 13 will suddenly solve all our attacking problems though. The major issue is going to be having 2 fit halfbacks on the pitch for the majority of the season which I dont see happening unfortunately and I can see us all having the same discussions about it yet again next season.

Good job I never said he would solve all our attacking problems then. I would have rather seen a quality halfback signed but that would have been largely impossible this year with no one of great quality being available. Plus it would have been hard to attract them when we already have two halves in place, that would have been a waste of money tbh. It's okay giving players names who we could have got but no one is available, Bulls are losing Orford and replacing him with an largely unknown player, Rovers have signed a largely unknown player for their halfback slot. There are no halves available this season.

The club are working on halves for 2012 but in the meantime have signed up one of SL's hottest young players on a long term deal. Only positives for me.

[Kosh]

Re: WESTERMAN SIGNING CONFIRMED : Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:52 am  

Robbo4 wrote:

Before anyone comes back with the usual "who would you sign then" rubbish or "nobody is available" I'll just say that anyone is available for the right price

I disagree with this. While money talks, there are other considerations that also affect player movements - Myler and Carvell being two recent examples.

Plus 'the right price' has to apply to both parties in the deal.

Re: WESTERMAN SIGNING CONFIRMED : Mon Nov 01, 2010 9:59 am  

Kosh wrote:

I disagree with this. While money talks, there are other considerations that also affect player movements - Myler and Carvell being two recent examples.

Plus 'the right price' has to apply to both parties in the deal.

I think we could have spent £150k a lot more wisely than on an unproven youngster, but I am happy that we've show ambition in recruitment.

Re: WESTERMAN SIGNING CONFIRMED : Mon Nov 01, 2010 10:17 am  

PAUL M wrote:

Good job I never said he would solve all our attacking problems then. I would have rather seen a quality halfback signed but that would have been largely impossible this year with no one of great quality being available. Plus it would have been hard to attract them when we already have two halves in place, that would have been a waste of money tbh. It's okay giving players names who we could have got but no one is available, Bulls are losing Orford and replacing him with an largely unknown player, Rovers have signed a largely unknown player for their halfback slot. There are no halves available this season.

The club are working on halves for 2012 but in the meantime have signed up one of SL's hottest young players on a long term deal. Only positives for me.

Again, I never said you did.

Using the Bradford and Rovers example would be fine if they had money available to pay a fee as we obviously do. How do you know who is available taking into account a possible transfer fee?

As an example; say we could have got Rangi Chase for 300k but decided to spend less and get Westerman. That would be a really poor decision IMO.

Anyway, it's all ifs and buts and just my take on it. I'm happy to have Westerman here and hopefully he will prove to be a really good signing.