Rumoured signings 2014 / 2015

[TheViking]

Did I post that?

<insert facepalm picture here>

When you have finished face palming yourself, check the post.

I RESPONDED to the quoted post.

You quoted me an then ranted on.

I understand your frustrated with your club and this situation though it's hardly the Dogs or any fans on this forums fault. More your own clubs. Stop the nonsense kid.

 

[Noname36]

It's remarkable.

I was discussing with the Raiders fan as quoted previously. Responded with Boyd, Gagai, Snowden, Smith, Scott and was abused because it ruined his little delusional argument. Oh then called an "idiot".

I hope this poor fella holds it together if the Mata'Utai boys do really leave.

Mate, seriously, when school goes back get your teacher to go over your reading comprehension.

1) the "superstars" the Knights signed during that time were mostly Bennett's men (Boyd, Scott, Smith, Cuthbertson) that wanted to play under him, Newcastle juniors or blokes from the area that wanted to go home to begin with (Snowden, Buderus, Tahu, McKinnon, Rochow) or blokes that had just been sacked from their previous clubs (Gagai, BJ, Mason). You're just listing names but not looking into why they signed for the Knights.

2) Perv was also trying to point out that the Knights biggest period of decent recruitment ever came for a short period when they actually had money. Funny that isn't it?

It shows that money makes a huge difference and your head is in the sand if you can't see that clubs with more money use it as a way to get around the salary cap and give them an advantage. I mean when you can offer a player more in third party money than money under the cap something is very wrong and it needs a review.

 

[Noname36]

Double

 

[dogslife]

Yes, that would be when we had silvertail money - which is exactly the point being made.

Why do you think there was a massive stink about Darius Boyd's contract this year the moment Tinkler pulled out? Couldn't be that a lot of his contract was in "3rd party sponsorships", could it? To the tune of $200k perhaps?

Another one misses the point completely, there's a shock. dogslife - why don't you go be funny somewhere or something? Surely there's a meme, funny picture or snide remark waiting to be posted somewhere.

f**k me drunk it must be school holidays. Am I bullying you again?

I don't see you making a point tbh. All I see is you whining about losing players to a better club. Stiff shit if they're juniors

Oh but the Bulldogs have more money! They also have a better coach, better facilities, a better team, better prospects. Why would any promising young player want to go there? I could go on all day if you like.

 

[TheViking]

Mate, seriously, when school goes back get your teacher to go over your reading comprehension.

1) the "superstars" the Knights signed during that time were mostly Bennett's men (Boyd, Scott, Smith, Cuthbertson) that wanted to play under him, Newcastle juniors or blokes from the area that wanted to go home to begin with (Snowden, Buderus, Tahu, McKinnon, Rochow) or blokes that had just been sacked from their previous clubs (Gagai, BJ, Mason). You're just listing names but not looking into why they signed for the Knights. We tried on a lot of blokes that didn't have a connection to the area or to Bennett and came up empty handed on all occasions.

2) Perv was also trying to point out that the Knights biggest period of decent recruitment ever came for a short period when they actually had money. Funny that isn't it?

I think you need the help in comprehension. Much like your other angry friend. You need to read the fact the Raider fan posted a question. In which I answered. Just because you write them off as "Bennett's men" means absolutely nothing and only supports my comment.

Thanks for the support.

 

[perverse]

2) Perv was also trying to point out that the Knights biggest period of decent recruitment ever came for a short period when they actually had money. Funny that isn't it?

This is what's relevant, Viking can continuing arguing with himself about what I didn't say all he likes. My point was and is that the only time in our history that we were able to sign anyone (co-incidentally accordingly to some apparently) was when we were cashed up to our eyeballs and had Wayne Bennett pulling our strings.

If the Raiders had a billionaire buy their club and Wayne Bennett installed as coach, they'd manage to land a few signings too. The point is that it all evaporates the moment the money does - and that shouldn't be the case if the cap works - which it doesn't and hasn't for years.

 

[ek999]

The Bulldogs won 3 games in the Holden Cup this year, that pretty much sums up how much regard they have for that comp or any sort of junior development.

That's because all our best U20's played NSW Cup instead

 

[perverse]

f**k me drunk it must be school holidays. Am I bullying you again?

I don't see you making a point tbh. All I see is you whining about losing players to a better club. Stiff shit if they're juniors

Oh but the Bulldogs have more money! They also have a better coach, better facilities, a better team, better prospects. Why would any promising young player want to go there? I could go on all day if you like.

Please do go on all day, it'll be the first legitimate contribution to the forum I've seen from you.

 

[Dutchy]

That's because all our best U20's played NSW Cup instead

So did most clubs best.

 

[Joker's Wild]

Knights recruited Beau Scott, Jeremy Smith, Kade Snowden, Darius Boyd all considered star players at their time...

Raiders are a different breed.

So when was the last time the Raiders did? Or Cowboys? Penrith? or the Storm even?

 

[Noname36]

I think you need the help in comprehension. Much like your other angry friend. You need to read the fact the Raider fan posted a question. In which I answered. Just because you write them off as "Bennett's men" means absolutely nothing and only supports my comment.

Thanks for the support.

Everyone with half a brain (which you obviously lack) could work out that Nick (the Raiders fan) was referring to how many superstars the Knights have been able to sign where they are currently or how they were before the brief period where they had Tinkler's money and Bennett's pull. And the answer to that is very few...just like the Raiders.

Money and cooperate backing gives clubs like the Bulldogs a distinct advantage over others by allowing them to spend well beyond their salary cap. You yourself said that the Dogs offered Fifita 400k worth of third party money. In what universe do you consider that fair?

What Tinkler's time at the Knights also shows is that at the end of the day money gives you many advantages in recruitment which is why the Knights were able to sign more players in the brief period they had money than ever before.

It also shows though that the Bulldogs would prefer to use that advantage they have by throwing money at players from other clubs to poach rather than investing in junior development themselves. This presents as a huge problem because if clubs like Newcastle and the Raiders keep having their juniors poached by clubs like the Bulldogs they won't see an incentive to keep investing in junior development. They need to receive incentives from the NRL to keep producing players because if they don't the game is going to reach a place where there's no talent coming through.

 

[TheViking]

Everyone with half a brain (which you obviously lack) could work out that Nick (the Raiders fan) was referring to how many superstars the Knights have been able to sign where they are currently or how they were before the brief period where they had Tinkler's money and Bennett's pull. And the answer to that is very few...just like the Raiders.

Money and cooperate backing gives clubs like the Bulldogs a distinct advantage over others by allowing them to spend well beyond their salary cap. What Tinkler's time at the Knights also shows is that at the end of the day money gives you many advantages in recruitment which is why the Knights were able to sign more players in the brief period they had money than ever before.

It also shows though that the Bulldogs would prefer to use that advantage they have by throwing money at players from other clubs rather than investing in junior development themselves. This presents as a huge problem because if clubs like Newcastle and the Raiders keep having their juniors poached by clubs like the Bulldogs they won't see an incentive to keep investing in junior development. They need to receive incentives from the NRL to keep producing players because if they don't the game is going to reach a place where there's no talent coming through.

Oh I see your now a mind reader.

Cool story bro!

Also for the record. JT, SBW, Myles, Barba, Mason, Lafai, Reynolds, Kasiano, Finucane, Jackson, Klemmer, Mataiu, Carter, Burr, Sezer all say hey! They just told me when I read their mind!

 

[Nice Beaver]

Everyone with half a brain (which you obviously lack) could work out that Nick (the Raiders fan) was referring to how many superstars the Knights have been able to sign where they are currently or how they were before the brief period where they had Tinkler's money and Bennett's pull. And the answer to that is very few...just like the Raiders.

Money and cooperate backing gives clubs like the Bulldogs a distinct advantage over others by allowing them to spend well beyond their salary cap. You yourself said that the Dogs offered Fifita 400k worth of third party money. In what universe do you consider that fair?

What Tinkler's time at the Knights also shows is that at the end of the day money gives you many advantages in recruitment which is why the Knights were able to sign more players in the brief period they had money than ever before.

It also shows though that the Bulldogs would prefer to use that advantage they have by throwing money at players from other clubs rather than investing in junior development themselves. This presents as a huge problem because if clubs like Newcastle and the Raiders keep having their juniors poached by clubs like the Bulldogs they won't see an incentive to keep investing in junior development. They need to receive incentives from the NRL to keep producing players because if they don't the game is going to reach a place where there's no talent coming through.

Great point. I am all for giving some discount in the salary cap for junior locals.

Gives some hope to repelling the bullshit amounts paid for 17 year old kids by the Chooks and Bulldogs of the world.

 

[TheViking]

So when was the last time the Raiders did? Or Cowboys? Penrith? or the Storm even?

Different question. I said the last time Raiders are a different bread.

Panthers have had a HUGE amount of purchased players. Hell most of their line up is now bought. Some highly wanted like Sega, Taylor, Sika etc.

Cowboys not so much, though still Tate, Winterstein, Linnentt, Moga.

Just off the top of my head. Cowboys aren't a team who I think poach a lot. That is likely because their cap is heavily tied up between a few players.

 

[Noname36]

Oh I see your now a mind reader.

Cool story bro!

Also for the record. JT, SBW, Myles, Barba, Mason, Lafai, Reynolds, Kasiano, Finucane, Jackson, Klemmer, Mataiu, Carter, Burr, Sezer all say hey! They just told me when I read their mind!

You really don't get it do do?

A lot of players you just named came through the Bulldogs system more than 10 years ago, and while they may have gotten away with the "bred not bought" line back then it's clearly not the case now.

There's also a huge difference between a club developing players through all the grades (i.e. the Knights with the Mata'utias) and a club poaching a player from another club's junior system, throwing them in their NYC team for a couple of months and trying to pass them off as their own junior when they make FG (i.e. Josh Jackson).

Great point. I am all for giving some discount in the salary cap for junior locals.

Gives some hope to repelling the bullshit amounts paid for 17 year old kids by the Chooks and Bulldogs of the world.

I agree completely, and I think it will not only encourage clubs that do develop players from a young age to continue doing it, but it may even encourage clubs like the Bulldogs to step up their own junior development instead of poaching others which will be better for the game in general.

That and a huge address of the salary cap is needed IMO. Third party deals need to be banned all together or at the very least capped so they can only make up a certain % of the offer. All this 350k under the cap and 400k in third party money (i.e. Fifita) is ridiculous.

 

[forby]

You have to get the Juniors to actually want to play for your club! Penrith and Parramatta do this and so a greater percentage stay.
Have a look around the NRL, every club has lost juniors to other clubs. I am a Panther through and through but can also realise that if you give advantages to clubs that have big junior nurseries (usually by geography not by the actions of the club) then you will need to offset this to the clubs that dont (again through no fault of their own).
Why would a future star want to stay in a club with no direction or plan if they got offered a chance with the current Grand Finalists? Who is saying that they are leaving because of money? Has anybody asked what their motivations are for wanting to leave? Perhaps they dont want to stay and money is not the issue. They probably see a better future at the Bulldogs than at the Knights.

 

[ek999]

So did most clubs best.

Knights didn't, not one of their grand final team was eligible for U20's

 

[TheViking]

You really don't get it do do?

A lot of players you just named came through the Bulldogs system more than 10 years ago, and while they may have gotten away with the "bred not bought" line back then it's clearly not the case now.

There's also a huge difference between a club developing players through all the grades (i.e. the Knights with the Mata'utias) and a club poaching a player from another club's junior system, throwing them in their NYC team for a couple of months and trying to pass them off as their own junior when they make FG (i.e. Josh Jackson).



I agree completely, and I think it will not only encourage clubs that do develop players from a young age to continue doing it, but it may even encourage clubs like the Bulldogs to step up their own junior development instead of poaching others which will be better for the game in general.

That and a huge address of the salary cap is needed IMO. Third party deals need to be banned all together or at the very least capped so they can only make up a certain % of the offer. All this 350k under the cap and 400k in third party money (i.e. Fifita) is ridiculous.

I think the last lot is a very fair comment.

That said the Jackson one is off the mark and again guys like Jackson, Finucane, Lafai, Klemmer, Reynolds, Mbye etc show we are producing talent. Even kids like Sezer, Carter and Burr now at other clubs still show this.

I don't see South fans calling Isaac Luke a bulldog product when he was with us and signed by them. It is what it is.

 

[ek999]

There's also a huge difference between a club developing players through all the grades (i.e. the Knights with the Mata'utias) and a club poaching a player from another club's junior system, throwing them in their NYC team for a couple of months and trying to pass them off as their own junior when they make FG (i.e. Josh Jackson).

Jackson was in the Knights system for 1 year before joining the Bulldogs who then spent the next 2 and a half years developing him before he got a crack at first grade

 

[TheViking]

Jackson was in the Knights system for 1 year before joining the Bulldogs who then spent the next 2 and a half years developing him before he got a crack at first grade

My point above. Him and Finucane been buddies living together for years coming through the Dogs.