What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Rumoured and Confirmed signings - Part 4

Status
Not open for further replies.

Matthew Ellis

Juniors
Messages
482
In respect of DWZ, Dave O'Neil said on a podcast that Too was on something like 75K and doing just as good a job (I'll correct him there, he is doing a better job) and even after paying a top up they have released money on the salary cap. He implied the same for Blake and if Naden keeps playing like that, he will be another one saving us big money even with a top up.
Just so you know all top 30 contracts are on a 100K minimum. Development contracts are 75K minimum. Both were in the development squad but are now in the top 30.
 
Messages
21,880
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.

To get under the cap. Brian Fletcher even publicly said we had salary cap pressure for next year, so it’s not really a saving that can be used for much, it’s a saving to make us salary cap compliant.


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.

Yeah I’d say the only way we can make a significant signing is if Maloney leaves, otherwise it’ll be Peachey for $300k. Who could still be a good contributor.

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.

I’m not against one or two, but Gus was handing them out like candy.

Cartwright, Moylan, Cleary, RCG, Blake, Whare even Leota got a 4 year deal. Merrin & Tamou also got 4 year deals. Tamou looks like he’ll be the first to actually finish one.


I honestly do think more 2-3 year deals will see less horse trading, it may not mean less player turnover overall, but I expect we’ll see more players actually finish their contracts and not be re-signed.

If someone was traded with 2 years left of a 3 year deal I’d suggest that would be an unusual circumstance. I think the shorter contract can have the potential to keep the player hungry, where as a 5 year deal a player might be a little too comfortable.


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.


I was actually critical of several of these 5 year deals when they were signed, not just after if fell apart. I remember be flabbergasted that Dean Whare would be given a 5 year deal after coming off two significant injuries. Also never rated Bryce Cartwright, who was a classic example of a hyped panthers junior.

The point for me is not signing these guys to overpriced deals in the first place, Gus’ strike rate was bad, there’s no getting around that. The guys he identified as being worth long term deals have for the most part been failures.

So yes, I don’t want overpriced, mediocre players on our roster either. But I want the strike rate of our talent identification improved. Without Gus I’m hopeful that can happen, because it pretty much can’t get any worse. (I’m talking specifically about the players given long deals here)

As I’ve mentioned before, none of that is to say Gus didn’t do some great stuff at the club, but I think there’s decent evidence to suggest his decision making became worse as time went on. So I’m glad we’ve freshened things up, and hopefully now will do things more by a consultative process than one mans viewpoint.
 
Last edited:

Andy_P

Juniors
Messages
52
But I think the idea was, sign players partly on potential, with the other part of the equation being the coach that can get the players to fulfill that potential. If we got Bennett, not doubt he would have moved some players on - but I'd say he would have taken most of the players to the next level. And then some of those 5 yr contracts wouldn't necessarily be looking so bad.
 

Panfa

Juniors
Messages
1,357
Dinosaur bennett is struggling during the 2nd half of the season souths have hardly won many games in the last 7 weeks and only just got home against a manly side the other day.
 
Messages
21,880
But I think the idea was, sign players partly on potential, with the other part of the equation being the coach that can get the players to fulfill that potential. If we got Bennett, not doubt he would have moved some players on - but I'd say he would have taken most of the players to the next level. And then some of those 5 yr contracts wouldn't necessarily be looking so bad.

Many of the five year deals were dished out well before Bennett was even in the picture.
 
Messages
21,880
Dinosaur bennett is struggling during the 2nd half of the season souths have hardly won many games in the last 7 weeks and only just got home against a manly side the other day.

Bit harsh. They’re still second on the table, had massive injuries in that middle period.
 

Thirsty Panther

Juniors
Messages
1,194
Dinosaur bennett is struggling during the 2nd half of the season souths have hardly won many games in the last 7 weeks and only just got home against a manly side the other day.
This is classic Bennett. During Origin he ups the training and the players struggle for a few weeks. Then tappers the training leading into the finals and his players are fitter at the business end of the season. The Broncos would often be written off after some poor performances only to turn it around in the finals.
 

Fangs

Coach
Messages
17,477
They did last year also and faded out similar to what is happening now. Mid season form slumps for the top teams aren't uncommon though wit origin etc

True, I just hold Bennett in high regard. I'm very confident he will have them firing. Burgess still to return. I don't think we are any chance of beating them in the finals.
 

betcats

Referee
Messages
24,320
True, I just hold Bennett in high regard. I'm very confident he will have them firing. Burgess still to return. I don't think we are any chance of beating them in the finals.

mmm its hard to see them not being a threat come finals tbh.
 

chrisD

Coach
Messages
15,960
Bennett's Broncos sucked and were never a contender. Bennett's Rabbitohs are very good.

Seibold's Broncos suck and are not a contender. Seibold's Rabbitohs were very good.
 

Pomoz

Bench
Messages
3,056
Bennett's Broncos sucked and were never a contender. Bennett's Rabbitohs are very good.

Seibold's Broncos suck and are not a contender. Seibold's Rabbitohs were very good.
That was a very young Bronco's team. Bennett never got the chance to continue their development, so we will never know what they would have achieved. Siebold will be under a lot of pressure next year if his current win/loss ratio continues. They aren't patient at Redhill.
 

chrisD

Coach
Messages
15,960
Didn't they get to golden point in a GF?
Bennett's 2018 Broncos sucked and were never a contender. Bennett's 2019 Rabbitohs are very good.

Seibold's 2019 Broncos suck and are not a contender. Seibold's 2018 Rabbitohs were very good.
 

betcats

Referee
Messages
24,320
Bennett's 2018 Broncos sucked and were never a contender. Bennett's 2019 Rabbitohs are very good.

Seibold's 2019 Broncos suck and are not a contender. Seibold's 2018 Rabbitohs were very good.

Fair enough I thought you were just talking about all of bennetts recent stint.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top