- Mar 13, 2008
- 6,522
- 2,807
For minimum wage of course
Yeah, it would be actually. Carney isn't in a position to demand big coin. Which means they save about 500k by turfing Maloney and get to keep all their other stars.
For minimum wage of course
I'm sure it will be, it still stinks though. They've probably got Ferguson on less than we're paying Reed too.Yeah, it would be actually. Carney isn't in a position to demand big coin. Which means they save about 500k by turfing Maloney and get to keep all their other stars.
You realise Pete is referring to his off the field things right? You know, things that have nothing to do with making grand finals or getting selected for rep honours.
That's because they gave him a job last year. So while Fergy Ferg was unable to play NRL because he was almost jailed for sexual assault then refused to show up to his old club instead of having to get his act together instead he spent a year with a sweet gig in Bondi. While I'm sure the Roosters would claim it had no bearing on the contract he signed for this year what it actually did was allow them to front load a contract in a year the player was not eligible for NRL, thus paying him outside the cap.I'm sure it will be, it still stinks though. They've probably got Ferguson on less than we're paying Reed too.
Yeah, it would be actually. Carney isn't in a position to demand big coin. Which means they save about 500k by turfing Maloney and get to keep all their other stars.
Yeah, it would be actually. Carney isn't in a position to demand big coin. Which means they save about 500k by turfing Maloney and get to keep all their other stars.
I don't buy that at all. He is on good coin in France and if he made himself open to offers from then NRL there would be at least 4 or 5 clubs gunning for him straight away.
With Manly leading the way after losing voth Foran and DCE.
he reportedly has a clause in his contract allowing him to return to the NRL.