Re: Is the Pryce right? : Thu Sep 30, 2010 1:14 pm  

Saint Simon wrote:

its just the usual local rag making a story out of nothing, a few questions:-
1) were would you get the money for it? (£150k + easily)
2) what incentive is there for saints to sell him?

You've changed your tune. You said £200k earlier on the Saints board until I pointed out that with the same amount left on this contract, only £100k was paid for Sam Burgess. Saints will have their price no doubt. If it's more than £100k for someone who only has a year left on his contract though, and may well have told them that after that year, he intends on going anyway, then I'll be amazed.

As far as where we get the money from. If Matt Orford does indeed leave and sign for someone else, we're due compensation for that as he has 2 years left on his contract. Compensation may be him buying out of contract or it may be another club paying a transfer fee. Either way, we have a player who won the Dally M only 2 years ago, who has 2 years left on his deal. Do you not think that would be worth more than Pryce with 1 year left? Should cover it easily, yes?

As far as incentive for Saints to sell, as I have said, what if he's already told them he's going after his contract is up? It's been well documented that he would like to return to Bradford one day, so if he knows the opportunity is there when his contract is up, he may already have made his mind up. So Saints have the same incentive that Bradford had with Burgess. Either lose him for nothing in a year, or lose him now and get some brass for him.

Saint Simon wrote:

again were is the incentive for saints to sell him?

Money now or no money in a year. That would be a fair incentive I'd say! (If the Price is right - no pun intended)


I'm not saying it's going to happen or it's not going to happen. But to be completely convinced that it won't happen for the reasons you've outlined is craziness.

Re: Is the Pryce right? : Thu Sep 30, 2010 1:20 pm  

Saint Simon wrote:

its just the usual local rag making a story out of nothing, a few questions:-
1) were would you get the money for it? (£150k + easily)
2) what incentive is there for saints to sell him?

Bet you have not talked with the reporter on the "Local rag"? Or Followed his track record? He is a smart guy, trust me, and knows his credibility depends on him usually calling it right. As indeed he almost always does. On his twitter, he says he put the article together from a number of sources.

As for the funds? Things have changed quite a bit up at Odsal in recent months, indeed weeks. Its a rather different set-up now, with a board now of three full-time executive directors including a new marketing director who has been putting a lot of work into funds generation. You might be surprised.

Incentive? Dunno...but if Leon was to be headed this way anyway in 2012 on a long-term deal you could have the identical situation we had with a potentially disgruntled Sam Burgess.

Re: Is the Pryce right? : Thu Sep 30, 2010 1:24 pm  

Saint Simon wrote:

I'd take Langley and £100k

Which of course means, you value Langley in the 50k region? Oh dear. I hope you don't work in finance.

Re: Is the Pryce right? : Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:54 pm  

FearTheVee wrote:

Possibly more accurate, but we've always managed to set aside cap space in the past without losing our best players at their peak.

Is this a euphemism or am I being cynical??

Re: Is the Pryce right? : Thu Sep 30, 2010 2:59 pm  

Saint Simon wrote:

I'd take Langley and £100k we need a fifth choice prop

Oh dear oh dear

Re: Is the Pryce right? : Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:02 pm  

Mick Gledhill wrote:

my friends who are respectable people

That's as big a shock as any in this thread.

Re: Is the Pryce right? : Thu Sep 30, 2010 3:03 pm  

vbfg wrote:

That's as big a shock as any in this thread.

Until you meet me, you've got me all worked out wrong. Trust me.

Re: Is the Pryce right? : Thu Sep 30, 2010 4:03 pm  

Aye, 'appen.

Re: Is the Pryce right? : Thu Sep 30, 2010 5:03 pm  

DILLIGAF wrote:

You've changed your tune. You said £200k earlier on the Saints board until I pointed out that with the same amount left on this contract, only £100k was paid for Sam Burgess. Saints will have their price no doubt. If it's more than £100k for someone who only has a year left on his contract though, and may well have told them that after that year, he intends on going anyway, then I'll be amazed.

As far as where we get the money from. If Matt Orford does indeed leave and sign for someone else, we're due compensation for that as he has 2 years left on his contract. Compensation may be him buying out of contract or it may be another club paying a transfer fee. Either way, we have a player who won the Dally M only 2 years ago, who has 2 years left on his deal. Do you not think that would be worth more than Pryce with 1 year left? Should cover it easily, yes?

As far as incentive for Saints to sell, as I have said, what if he's already told them he's going after his contract is up? It's been well documented that he would like to return to Bradford one day, so if he knows the opportunity is there when his contract is up, he may already have made his mind up. So Saints have the same incentive that Bradford had with Burgess. Either lose him for nothing in a year, or lose him now and get some brass for him.

Money now or no money in a year. That would be a fair incentive I'd say! (If the Price is right - no pun intended)


I'm not saying it's going to happen or it's not going to happen. But to be completely convinced that it won't happen for the reasons you've outlined is craziness.

Must admit I find it difficult to see an NRL club paying a significant fee for someone of Orford's age and pay him something near to what we are. If they rate him that highly why didnt they just sign him before he came to us?

Re: Is the Pryce right? : Thu Sep 30, 2010 5:16 pm  

Mick Gledhill wrote:

Well he's having you on then (unless he was winding me up), speak to Baz or Gilly, they were there.

mick for a story to be believable you need to keep it consistent. you started this thread with

Mick Gledhill wrote:

All I'll say is after seeing Leon in the pub tonight with some other familiar faces, is that he'll be playing in the red amber and black sooner rather than later.

i.e YOU claimed to have personally seen/talked to leon and some other players in the pub. Now you're claiming that you were told they were in, and now that someone else was winding you up, when confronted with the fact that your so called witnesses state that neither you nor said players were present on the night in question.

Do they still make kids read/watch "billy liar" at school? If not then I'd suggest you rent a copy and watch it as it could be a bio-pic about your life.