Rumoured and Confirmed signings - Part 4

[TheFrog]

Not even sure wrt Latrell tbh.

He'd be the last bloke I'd sign for 5 years. Would not surprise to see him leave the Roosters soon.

 

[franklin2323]

Not even sure wrt Latrell tbh.

He will sign for 5 years somewhere. I wouldn't do it

 

[OldPanther]

He will sign for 5 years somewhere. I wouldn't do it

We should sign him fo minimum wage. He can learn to be a centre off Naden.

 

[Luke Bowden]

Not even sure wrt Latrell tbh.

I’d much rather sign Joesph Manu if I’m honest.

 

[soc123_au]

I'd give the Turbo bros 5 years.

 

[Westernised Panther]

He'd be the last bloke I'd sign for 5 years. Would not surprise to see him leave the Roosters soon.

Could be onto something. I’ve heard from an extremely reliable source from the Roosters camp that Latrell’s Dad is in his ear, telling him to go for the money. Given the rumours that Souths and Bulldogs are offering large sums of cash, it definitely won’t surprise me if he leaves.

Apparently Souths are the front runners.

 

[herbert henry1908]

Latrell has a big future if he gets in the right head space, the thing is though being a centre limits his earning potential. I could never pay huge money fo someone outside of the spine, they just don’t see the ball enough.

Roosters would be smart not to match ridiculous offers for him.

 

[martielang]

Tbh I’d happily give Latrell a 5 year deal, one of the few I would.

 

[Dave's mate]

Tbh I’d happily give Latrell a 5 year deal, one of the few I would.

Exacty the type of player you shouldn't. He's lazy and all his family are morbidly obese

 

[herbert henry1908]

Exacty the type of player you shouldn't. He's lazy and all his family are morbidly obese

Yep. This is his brother.

 

[GongPanther]

Gus went too far with longer ones but they have a place with the right players

We really don't know what happens in the backgroud behind closed doors. Gus yielding to those longer contracts must have been a result of another club offering a similar length of time.

 

[BxTom]

We really don't know what happens in the backgroud behind closed doors. Gus yielding to those longer contracts must have been a result of another club offering a similar length of time.

Or a trade off for a lower pay scale...

 

[herbert henry1908]

Except the club has now come out and said no more long term deals, which likely means they don’t think the benefits of the long term deals are worth it.

 

[martielang]

Exacty the type of player you shouldn't. He's lazy and all his family are morbidly obese

The kid is that dominant irrespective of his weight.

 

[OldPanther]

Except the club has now come out and said no more long term deals, which likely means they don’t think the benefits of the long term deals are worth it.

They thought jobs for their mates was better than Bennett as well. I'm not sure they have the best judgement.

 

[herbert henry1908]

They thought jobs for their mates was better than Bennett as well. I'm not sure they have the best judgement.

Fair point, but if we were over the cap for next year you could see how they’d be annoyed.

 

[OldPanther]

Fair point, but if we were over the cap for next year you could see how they’d be annoyed.

For sure. I also should mention I'm not a fan of the 5 year contracts either.

 

[Pomoz]

Huh? Of course there are savings, I never said otherwise. I just said they may not be as much as we might think.

I’m not repeating what you said, I’m pointing out that the savings are relevant for next year, hence O’Neill quoting the $75k for this year is misleading.

You used the 75k figure in the savings calculation, that’s wrong, because the savings are relevant for next year, not this. Next year To’o is on at least $105k.



I know you’re quoting him, I’m pointing out that the 75k figure is misleading. If he was being 100% straight he’d point out that To’o is on a minimum of $105k next year, when the savings are relevant.

To say I have to get used to it is odd when you’ve just said I should believe Dave O’Neill. If he’s to be believed there’ll be less of this because as he says, they’re getting out of the business of long term deals. Less long term deals should mean less horse trading.



I’m relieved to hear the club won’t be dishing out as many long term contracts, not angry.

Im annoyed that Gus placed faith in 20 year old footy players to deliver after being paid handsome, long term deals. Gus was the adult in the room, his strategy was bad at worse, naive at best.

in fact if we are to believe Dave O’Neill, he thinks the strategy was bad too.





Lastly I’d point out that from a fans perspective the savings may not mean much if we were over the cap for next year. The group CEO said the moves were about salary cap savings, so if this is true it’s unlikely to result in a significant signing.

Why would they get rid of Blake and DWZ if there aren't significant savings? Why upset the fans and the players for only a small gain? That makes no sense. We don't know the exact numbers but I will credit the retention committee with enough intelligence not go and do this without a worthwhile reward.

Next year after upgrades for Naden and Too there should still be enough left to have cash for an extra player in the 200 to 300k range or to replace Maloney with a better player (Maloney's salary plus the savings), although I'm not sure there are any on the market next year.

I'm not against 5 year contracts, a few key players on 5 or 4 year deals makes sense. Even more so now that trading players is commonplace.

I don't think the fact we will mainly have 3 year deals will make any difference to the trading. Teams are fluid and a player can sign and within 12 months is not worth what he signed for. You would still trade him if he had 2 years left on a 3 year deal. Too and Naden are great examples of where we paid too much for DWZ and Blake because we had no idea these two would be so good and other teams were trying to sign them. Gus did what he had to do to retain them and nobody complained at the time. A rep quality centre and fullback are worth the rumoured 500k a year each. But only if they really are rep quality and as it turns out, they aren't.

With the benefit of hindsight, it's very easy to be critical of deals signed. I think it is very difficult and much more complicated than people think. The market place inflates salaries some times and you just don't know what a player is going to go on and do. It is so frustrating watching a player like Blake with all that athletic ability, just not make the step up. As Gus said, you actually have to take a punt that a player will go on and be worth what you sign them for. If that doesn't eventuate, you move them on. This is exactly what has happened with Blake and DWZ, isn't that just showing the system works? I hope we continue to do that and constantly review our roster and make changes.

You abhor it, I embrace it. For many years we would have happily allowed overpriced mediocre players to stay on our roster.

 

[Kilkenny]

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with 5 year deals some work for you and some may not go your way.

 

[OldPanther]

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with 5 year deals some work for you and some may not go your way.

You may be right, there is a lot of risk involved for both sides.