Re: WESTERMAN SIGNING CONFIRMED : Sat Oct 30, 2010 7:39 pm  

Robbo4 wrote:

My only concern would be that spending this kind of money on a transfer might stop us being able to pay a large transfer fee for a player we really need. 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 and its not my job to identify them. The fact we have paid a fee for a player in a position that wasn't a massive priority just seems like it could be a wasted opportunity to me. I think some people are grasping at straws suggesting he will bring a more creative aspect to the team at 13 as he has never struck me a particularly creative player, perhaps I'm wrong about that though?

I'm not saying he is a bad player at all and if he had come free or the transfer fee paid would have zero impact on cash available for a more vital signing I'd be more than happy to have him in the team. I just hope we are not all sat here halfway through the season complaining about our style of play and lack of creativity yet again.

Fair comments, but I think this signing is more about 2012 and beyond and avoiding the transfer market fight for him next year (since Agar's been targetting him for a while). The point on creativity I think is more about him offering more than an extra prop at 13, Fitz/O'Meley at prop and Westerman at 13 potentially offering more than Dowes(or Radford)/O'Meley at prop and Fitz at 13. More in hope than expectation though.

Re: WESTERMAN SIGNING CONFIRMED : Sat Oct 30, 2010 7:40 pm  

Robbo4 wrote:

My only concern would be that spending this kind of money on a transfer might stop us being able to pay a large transfer fee for a player we really need. 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 and its not my job to identify them. The fact we have paid a fee for a player in a position that wasn't a massive priority just seems like it could be a wasted opportunity to me. I think some people are grasping at straws suggesting he will bring a more creative aspect to the team at 13 as he has never struck me a particularly creative player, perhaps I'm wrong about that though?

I'm not saying he is a bad player at all and if he had come free or the transfer fee paid would have zero impact on cash available for a more vital signing I'd be more than happy to have him in the team. I just hope we are not all sat here halfway through the season complaining about our style of play and lack of creativity yet again.

I guess it depends how much we've got available to spend. If we've paid £150k for Westerman as rumoured what's to say we haven't got another £150k in the bank should we need to spend it? I'd bet my house that we do. (if the right player comes up)

I'm surprised though that we could tempt a scrum half away from someone for £300k. (although maybe fitting them under the salary cap is a bigger issue than transfer fees)

Re: WESTERMAN SIGNING CONFIRMED : Sun Oct 31, 2010 12:54 pm  

Why did agar say it was fantasy the bast@d

Re: WESTERMAN SIGNING CONFIRMED : Sun Oct 31, 2010 12:57 pm  

dommo808 wrote:

Why did agar say it was fantasy the bast@d

Re: WESTERMAN SIGNING CONFIRMED : Sun Oct 31, 2010 10:56 pm  

Robbo4 wrote:

My only concern would be that spending this kind of money on a transfer might stop us being able to pay a large transfer fee for a player we really need. 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 and its not my job to identify them. The fact we have paid a fee for a player in a position that wasn't a massive priority just seems like it could be a wasted opportunity to me. I think some people are grasping at straws suggesting he will bring a more creative aspect to the team at 13 as he has never struck me a particularly creative player, perhaps I'm wrong about that though?

I'm not saying he is a bad player at all and if he had come free or the transfer fee paid would have zero impact on cash available for a more vital signing I'd be more than happy to have him in the team. I just hope we are not all sat here halfway through the season complaining about our style of play and lack of creativity yet again.

What is we could not get anyone else, do we just not spend the money and not get stronger in the meantime? It's very rare you have to pay a fee and who is to say we would not do it again next off season? It's not rubbish to say who else is available, it's a relevant question, you can't just say we should have spent it on someone better and not give an example.

For two years we have played with a prop at 13, Westerman is a 13 and a mixture of an old and new style, it has to be an improvement on our previous style of play.

Re: WESTERMAN SIGNING CONFIRMED : Sun Oct 31, 2010 11:06 pm  

PAUL M wrote:

What is we could not get anyone else, do we just not spend the money and not get stronger in the meantime? It's very rare you have to pay a fee and who is to say we would not do it again next off season? It's not rubbish to say who else is available, it's a relevant question, you can't just say we should have spent it on someone better and not give an example.

[i]For two years we have played with a prop at 13[/i], Westerman is a 13 and a mixture of an old and new style, it has to be an improvement on our previous style of play.

Why?????? We had options but specifically Agar decided to play a prop at 13 , first Radford and now Fitz. Is Westerman £175k better than what we had. Could we not at least have tried the theory out , ie , not playing a prop at 13 , before concluding that it would only work if we spent £175k on a , largely other than his first season , unproved 13?? Westerman may well be the answer to our prayers and I hope he is but I still do not understand the logic.

Re: WESTERMAN SIGNING CONFIRMED : Sun Oct 31, 2010 11:09 pm  

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

Re: WESTERMAN SIGNING CONFIRMED : Sun Oct 31, 2010 11:12 pm  

World of Redboy wrote:

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

A panic buy? We've been after him for months.

Re: WESTERMAN SIGNING CONFIRMED : Sun Oct 31, 2010 11:12 pm  

ChrisH wrote:

Why?????? We had options but specifically Agar decided to play a prop at 13 , first Radford and now Fitz. Is Westerman £175k better than what we had. Could we not at least have tried the theory out , ie , not playing a prop at 13 , before concluding that it would only work if we spent £175k on a , largely other than his first season , unproved 13?? Westerman may well be the answer to our prayers and I hope he is but I still do not understand the logic.

I agree we had other options and when Washy did play there we looked a better attacking unit but having paid the money for him he won't be ignored. Whiting was needed in other areas and maybe Washy was not producing in training?

Westerman is not an out and out ball playing 13 but he has good skills and is mobile which will give us better options with ball in hand.

Re: WESTERMAN SIGNING CONFIRMED : Mon Nov 01, 2010 12:00 am  

PAUL M wrote:

What is we could not get anyone else, do we just not spend the money and not get stronger in the meantime? It's very rare you have to pay a fee and who is to say we would not do it again next off season? It's not rubbish to say who else is available, it's a relevant question, you can't just say we should have spent it on someone better and not give an example.

For two years we have played with a prop at 13, Westerman is a 13 and a mixture of an old and new style, it has to be an improvement on our previous style of play.

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.