And will be even more delighted to read your posts?

His market value is way way beyond 200K, so why did they accept it?

I didn't hear of a rival bid from the NRL.

Why was it?

It may have been from a SL club, but it seems clear both that Sam did not want to go to another SL club and that the Bulls would not anyway countenance that. Therefore his SL "market value" is zero - or better to say, maybe, "not applicable" - since he was not in the market. Was he?

Sam DID want to go to the NRL, and could have left for the NRL at the end of next season as a free agent, with a host of club chasing his signature. And it seems pretty clear (I would suggest) he would have been one very unhappy bunny had he not been allowed to break his contract a year early. An Aussie club came in - pretty well without precedent - with an offer of a transfer fee. That transfer fee offer WAS his market value, since otherwise he would likely have been going nowhere and would have left anyway for nothing end of next season. Maybe having performed like he did first 2/3 of this season, at best?

Now I'm quite happy for someone to improve on my argument and educate me on the workings of the market. Just so long as it reflects the actual situation and not some hypothetical situation of willing buyer and willing seller in SL, which situation did not exist.

Considering what we have in return got for our 200K (ie, SFA) keeping Sam for another year and letting him go for free would have been a better bit of business.

Maybe so. But that is a different argument to the discussion we were just having, which was about Sam allegedly having been sold for a fraction of his market value. Isn't it?

But, having taken it as read that the "market value" question has now been resolved, yes I think in your follow-up argument you make a fair point that warrants serious debate.

The answer probably hinges on whether Sam would have taken it on the chin and given his all, or taken his bat home, I'd say? I really don't know which it would have been, although I did seriously wonder whether Sam's indifferent (by his standards) performances earlier in the season reflected a bit of the latter? Or, maybe more to the point, serious uncertainty at least? And I feel sure his manager (what cut did he get?) will have had very strong and persuasive arguments for Sam in favour of a move?

Had he have been compelled to stay for another year, what performances would we have seen? I don't know the answer to that and I doubt neither does anyone else on here? Had we been sure that Sam would give his best - and that neither his manager nor anyone else would seek to detract him from doing just that - then most definitely I would have wanted to keep him. But Sam's own comments after the deal was announced strongly alluded to the "uncertainty" having affected his game. So its all down to what might have been?

Souths have 200k to splash. We don't.

Took Halley himself long enough.

Where has the money gone then?

Scully (jnr) has just bought a big fat Merc . . . . . .

We do now though don't we?
What are we going to spend it on?
Nothing by all accounts.

Peter Hood's doing backstroke through a swmming pool of gold coins like Scrooge McDuck.

The money has been paid into the Bulls' bank account, oddly enough, and that's where it will remain, until the Bulls decide that there is somebody available and willing to come to Odsal, who is worth spending some or all of it on.

Most are unavailable.

Many would not come.

Many are not worth it.

Meaning.. it's going on the broken drainage system next time it breaks