Yes, also if available for a much less fee, would anyone have been confident that we would have signed him a head Leeds, Saints and Warrington?

Hull have done what they needed to do, we where rumoured to have bid for Myler a couple of times, and maybe we have put bids in for other halfbacks.

I still think we where weak at the prop position, so this move should really strenthen that position with Fitz moving there.

Good job I never said he would solve all our attacking problems then. I would have rather seen a quality halfback signed but that would have been largely impossible this year with no one of great quality being available. Plus it would have been hard to attract them when we already have two halves in place, that would have been a waste of money tbh. It's okay giving players names who we could have got but no one is available, Bulls are losing Orford and replacing him with an largely unknown player, Rovers have signed a largely unknown player for their halfback slot. There are no halves available this season.

The club are working on halves for 2012 but in the meantime have signed up one of SL's hottest young players on a long term deal. Only positives for me.

I disagree with this. While money talks, there are other considerations that also affect player movements - Myler and Carvell being two recent examples.

Plus 'the right price' has to apply to both parties in the deal.

I think we could have spent £150k a lot more wisely than on an unproven youngster, but I am happy that we've show ambition in recruitment.

Again, I never said you did.

Using the Bradford and Rovers example would be fine if they had money available to pay a fee as we obviously do. How do you know who is available taking into account a possible transfer fee?

As an example; say we could have got Rangi Chase for 300k but decided to spend less and get Westerman. That would be a really poor decision IMO.

Anyway, it's all ifs and buts and just my take on it. I'm happy to have Westerman here and hopefully he will prove to be a really good signing.

I was talking about the right price for the club to allow the player to leave.

But then the player has to want to leave. And the buying club has to be able to afford the price.

Personally, I think this point is far less simple than you want to make it. In theory, yes, anything is for sale at the right price, but with the current halfback market that is likely to be prohibitively expensive if it all. The lack of replacements available for any club selling their half means that there is very little, if any benefit to them. It would be like selling your car for more than it's theoretically worth but the only replacement transport you can buy afterwards is a bicycle.

Then there's Kosh's point. Players may not want to leave their clubs, even if said club is willing to sell.

Good signing IMO, not read the whole thread but I remember a fair amount of fans who wouldnt have thought this was a step in the right direction.

You need to get this kid back into form as he was pretty ordinary last season but showed some real signs of class previously, has to start at 13 and this will free-up Fitz to play in the SR. It will be interesting to see if Agar can get the best out of Westerman!

We seem to be going off on a tangent here. I never said you can always get any player you want if the price is right. I said any player is "available" at the right price. For instance I reckon Rangi Chase would be available if we offered 500k for him. That's not to say he would want to come here or that we should offer that kind of money. My point was that pretty much any player has a price that the selling club would be willing to accept. The harder part would be the players wage demands due to the salary cap.

I thought the NRL was full of quality halfbacks?

Ah, OK - see what you mean now. Not sure that's a useful/practical definition of 'available' though.

thats funny coming from someone whos complete knowledge of current rugby league is gleaned from his sky box , oh sorry and the two matches he attends each year

When people say "nobody else is available" what definition are they using? This discussion was about the fact we paid a fee so my point was that any player is available for the right fee. I can't possibly say if players themselves are not available, once an offer has been accepted, because how would anyone know until the player has been approached?