Brisbane Broncos table Anthony Milford richest deal in club’s history

[jd123]

This bit

I wrote - A players worth is what the market will pay,..........That is a fact.

but their worth to the team and club overall and prior form should be taken into account before big amounts of money are thrown around......and that is not a fact but should apply when considering a players contract and the whole club with regards to the cap.

So let me know if you get stuck again understanding something. :wave:

 

[Sproj]

So are you saying that in your opinion you don't think the market value of Milford is right? Or are you saying the Broncs shouldn't pay him market value?

 

[Nashy]

Isn't he just attempting to say his market value is X, but to a team that absolutely sucks, they could build a team around the player, so to that team, he is worth more than the market value, so they pay overs.

The problem is, most of the time when people are paid overs, it's by dumb clubs, and backfires.

 

[BroncsFan]

I'm guessing he is saying the market value isn't right and that would be true considering it is based on his potential rather than what he has currently shown.

If he consistently performed at the 2015 gf level he'd probably be the most valuable player in the game so getting him locked down for 3yrs at $900k seems a good deal to me when considering the cap will rise over the next years

 

[jd123]

So are you saying that in your opinion you don't think the market value of Milford is right? Or are you saying the Broncs shouldn't pay him market value?

If only I could do charades on the internet.... To answer your first question, the market value is what the market (any team) is willing to the pay the most for him. EG If Canberra offered him 2M per season over 4 years, that would be his market value, because that is what "the market" is wiling to pay. Think Ben Hunt....
To answer your second question, I think the Broncos should pay him for what he has done in the past more so on what he might potentially do in the future and if that is less than other clubs are willing to offer than yes I say Brisbane should not pay "Market value" If you don't get it now, I don't think I can explain it any more clearly than that.

Isn't he just attempting to say his market value is X, but to a team that absolutely sucks, they could build a team around the player, so to that team, he is worth more than the market value, so they pay overs.

The problem is, most of the time when people are paid overs, it's by dumb clubs, and backfires.

You just won a set of steak knives.

 

[Sproj]

If you don't get it now, I don't think I can explain it any more clearly than that.

Makes sense now, thanks.

 

[Danoz Direct]

If only I could do charades on the internet.... To answer your first question, the market value is what the market (any team) is willing to the pay the most for him. EG If Canberra offered him 2M per season over 4 years, that would be his market value, because that is what "the market" is wiling to pay. Think Ben Hunt....
To answer your second question, I think the Broncos should pay him for what he has done in the past more so on what he might potentially do in the future and if that is less than other clubs are willing to offer than yes I say Brisbane should not pay "Market value" If you don't get it now, I don't think I can explain it any more clearly than that.

Are you saying that if he wants more than what we are offering we should just let him leave?

 

[jd123]

Makes sense now, thanks.

No worries.

Are you saying that if he wants more than what we are offering we should just let him leave?

Yes and No. I would not like to see him leave, but if he demands an unreasonable figure that would see us sign him at the expense of maybe 3 or 4 up and coming players with ability then I would say cut him loose. Obviously it is dependent on many things and ultimately up to the club what they think and do, just my opinion on him is he has been good for us but not THAT good that we should be sparing no expense in re-signing him.
If he was a Lockyer or a Hodges or a Renouf, JT, yeah, do whatever it takes but to me he is not at that level and may never reach it, so why pay overs for him?

 

[Renegade]

No worries.
Yes and No. I would not like to see him leave, but if he demands an unreasonable figure that would see us sign him at the expense of maybe 3 or 4 up and coming players with ability then I would say cut him loose. Obviously it is dependent on many things and ultimately up to the club what they think and do, just my opinion on him is he has been good for us but not THAT good that we should be sparing no expense in re-signing him.

and therein lies the problem with your theory - if we say milf isn't worth say 900k a year, but someone else does, then you have an issue with the 3-4 promising players, being able to demand x amount because milf just got 900k. so then you're faced with the same thing of well if he passes a certain threshold he is no longer worth signing because of his implied value to the team.

I think this has all stemmed from posters saying yes concentrate on signing milf give him what he wants - you have taken this literally, like someone is going to pay him 3 mill a season and take up half the salary cap. no one has gone close to even suggesting this, so it's all a bit of a ridiculous hypothetical.

 

[john1420]

If only I could do charades on the internet.... To answer your first question, the market value is what the market (any team) is willing to the pay the most for him. EG If Canberra offered him 2M per season over 4 years, that would be his market value, because that is what "the market" is wiling to pay. Think Ben Hunt....
To answer your second question, I think the Broncos should pay him for what he has done in the past more so on what he might potentially do in the future and if that is less than other clubs are willing to offer than yes I say Brisbane should not pay "Market value" If you don't get it now, I don't think I can explain it any more clearly than that.


You just won a set of steak knives.

So your suggestion is that the club, in an effort to retain it's star playmaker, should adopt a retention strategy of not paying him his market value

Thank God you're not in charge of the club

 

[jd123]

So your suggestion is that the club, in an effort to retain it's star playmaker, should adopt a retention strategy of not paying him his market value

Thank God you're not in charge of the club

I never said that, I said the club should not pay overs for him and that I would prefer if he stays.

Nice try at insulting me and trying to put words into my mouth but you failed.

 

[broncos4life]

I never said that, I said the club should not pay overs for him and that I would prefer if he stays.

Nice try at insulting me and trying to put words into my mouth but you failed.

What do you class as overs though?

 

[BroncsFan]

I don't think "overs" can be determined until the cap is announced. It's pointless saying $900k is overs at this stage because you can only compare it to the current $7m cap.

If the cap rises to $10m a $1m salary is basically equivalent to $700k in the current cap

Until nrl get their shit together lots of players and teams are vulnerable as we were when drags offered hunt $1m a season.... $1m a season could look like a master stroke to drags if the cap rises high enough

 

[Rhys van Beurden]

Paying over $1m at the CURRENT cap is too much imo, and played heavily into why the Cowboys have only ever managed to get one premiership with JT. He has always taken way too much of their cap to spread the talent around, and he further begins to cripple them as they lose both Tamou, Ponga, and probably Scott. Having said that, if the cap rises to $10m, a million dollar contract for a player at Milford's value is way worth it. But not many players are worth a Milford pay day.

 

[Scorchie]

Pay him $1M. He gets fans into the game and may help retain some of them before the inevitable march of our red balled friends throw more cash at the Brisbane market.

 

[john1420]

I never said that, I said the club should not pay overs for him and that I would prefer if he stays.

Nice try at insulting me and trying to put words into my mouth but you failed.

"yes I say Brisbane should not pay "Market value" "

Your words mate, you said exactly what I quoted you as saying

Now, if you worded it poorly and really meant something else, that's fine - but you said they shouldn't pay his market value

 

[jd123]

"yes I say Brisbane should not pay "Market value" "

Your words mate, you said exactly what I quoted you as saying

Now, if you worded it poorly and really meant something else, that's fine - but you said they shouldn't pay his market value

You seem to have trouble comprehending what my thoughts are on this subject. Re-read the posts above and you will see what I said with regard to what he should be paid. I don't want to have to explain it a third time, if you don't get it then, just forget it.

 

[john1420]

You seem to have trouble comprehending what my thoughts are on this subject. Re-read the posts above and you will see what I said with regard to what he should be paid. I don't want to have to explain it a third time, if you don't get it then, just forget it.

yeah mate no issues

I believe I have quoted you, word for word, as saying one thing and now you are saying that's not what you actually meant to say

If you don't wish to clarify I am quite happy to leave it

With that said, from 1 Bronco fan to another, may the boys have a great year and may we celebrate victory together :)