Rumoured and Confirmed signings - Part 4

[Tronald Crump]

We can't raid. Who realistically wants to live in Penrith?

Money talks.

 

[mxlegend99]

For all the shit Gus copped for cap management after we got rid of him he sure as hell seemed to be able to keep the players he wanted on long term deals and had no trouble getting rid of the ones that didn't work out with minimal to no impact on our salary cap.

While we appear to have made some good decisions since. We look like we will struggle to keep this group together long term and will be stuck paying overs for everyone. I just cant imagine anyone pulling shit like Crichton is doing on Gus. Or us contributing so much money to players we didn't want under him.

Sure everyone would belocked up on lkngterm deals. But Crichton would be locked away for 5 years at the original $500k and not be getting god knows how much more ontop of it.

It's a shame we didnt keep Gus onboard purely for negotiating contracts. His overs to players dont look so bad when faced with the overs it will take to keep together this team.

 

[franklin2323]

Who won't be as good. Probably another plodder.

He should have been retained months ago. The writing was on wall with Tamou and Hetherington. A club that finished 1st shouldn't lose 3 props in a matter of months.

Say we have $500k aside for Leinu. That will get a decent enough player. The plodder Eisenhuth was signed to replace the other plodder in Ellis

 

[franklin2323]

For all the shit Gus copped for cap management after we got rid of him he sure as hell seemed to be able to keep the players he wanted on long term deals and had no trouble getting rid of the ones that didn't work out with minimal to no impact on our salary cap.

While we appear to have made some good decisions since. We look like we will struggle to keep this group together long term and will be stuck paying overs for everyone. I just cant imagine anyone pulling shit like Crichton is doing on Gus. Or us contributing so much money to players we didn't want under him.

Sure everyone would belocked up on lkngterm deals. But Crichton would be locked away for 5 years at the original $500k and not be getting god knows how much more ontop of it.

It's a shame we didnt keep Gus onboard purely for negotiating contracts. His overs to players dont look so bad when faced with the overs it will take to keep together this team.

How many saw out their 5 years though?

 

[Hooked]

How many saw out their 5 years though?

None.
The point should be made Gus tied them up before others could come knocking.
His approach done on more measured tone would have been the way. Tie them up on 2-3 year deals before November 1.
Doesn't over commit us and keeps the wolf from the door.

 

[Hooked]

For all the shit Gus copped for cap management after we got rid of him he sure as hell seemed to be able to keep the players he wanted on long term deals and had no trouble getting rid of the ones that didn't work out with minimal to no impact on our salary cap.

While we appear to have made some good decisions since. We look like we will struggle to keep this group together long term and will be stuck paying overs for everyone. I just cant imagine anyone pulling shit like Crichton is doing on Gus. Or us contributing so much money to players we didn't want under him.

They wouldn't pull this shit on Nick Politis either.

 

[franklin2323]

If we can’t keep who we want to keep then, there is not much point developing players. All the millions of dollars ploughed into it for other club's benefits.
Sure we get some playes but probably not enough at the end of the day.
I like seeing players come through the grades and turn into first graders.
The NRL need to give clubs incentives to keep developing junior players. Whether it is a salary cap dispensation or a transfer fee paid by other clubs.
It is not a fair system at the moment.

Otherwise we might well throw in the towel and start raiding other clubs.

There would be no players too raid if we didn't produce players that is the issue

 

[franklin2323]

None.
The point should be made Gus tied them up before others could come knocking.
His approach done on more measured tone would have been the way. Tie them up on 2-3 year deals before November 1.
Doesn't over commit us and keeps the wolf from the door.

What good is locking them in if they are gone anyway in 2

 

[mxlegend99]

What good is locking them in if they are gone anyway in 2

It becomes our decision to let them leave. We hold most the power.

Instead we are being held to ransom by the majority of our roster at the same time. Facing paying huge overs or losing them immediately.

Letting so many guys hit the market at once was stupid. When everyone is negotiating for more we will inevitably lose guys we could've kept due to the negotiating process and not knowing who will and wont stay.


Gus was far from perfect. But this is an area we have gone backwards in. Gus locked guys up before they could hit the market. Alot were released under him but we rarely had to contribute anything to them.

 

[Hooked]

What good is locking them in if they are gone anyway in 2

You do what Gould did. You keep locking them up before they come off contract. Instead of the 4 or 5 years he kept doing. You do 2 and 3 year deals.
You don't let a whole heap come off at the same time.

 

[WestyLife]

You do what Gould did. You keep locking them up before they come off contract. Instead of the 4 or 5 years he kept doing. You do 2 and 3 year deals.
You don't let a whole heap come off at the same time.

This. Same security with less risk.

 

[franklin2323]

It becomes our decision to let them leave. We hold most the power.

Instead we are being held to ransom by the majority of our roster at the same time. Facing paying huge overs or losing them immediately.

Letting so many guys hit the market at once was stupid. When everyone is negotiating for more we will inevitably lose guys we could've kept due to the negotiating process and not knowing who will and wont stay.


Gus was far from perfect. But this is an area we have gone backwards in. Gus locked guys up before they could hit the market. Alot were released under him but we rarely had to contribute anything to them.

We have the power now. We either re-sign them or we don't if demands are too over the top then we pull out

 

[WestyLife]

We have the power now. We either re-sign them or we don't if demands are too over the top then we pull out

The power is with the player and their manager in that scenario as they can just accept the bigger offer from a desperate club then you lose the player you wanted to keep or pay heavy overs.

 

[franklin2323]

You do what Gould did. You keep locking them up before they come off contract. Instead of the 4 or 5 years he kept doing. You do 2 and 3 year deals.
You don't let a whole heap come off at the same time.

look at when the guys were all signed though. Who deserved a longer deal at the time? Maybe you extend Yeo last off season.

The others were fringe FGers to start last season. When they became regulars we were deep in the premiership race and you don't do deals then

 

[franklin2323]

The power is with the player and their manager in that scenario as they can just accept the bigger offer from a desperate club then you lose the player you wanted to keep or pay heavy overs.

Didn't Moylan complain about his deal 6 months after signing it? So the long deals don't even fix that.

Rather have x amount in the cap to spend elsewhere if we lose the player

 

[herbert henry1908]

We lose our 4th string fullback and the world
Is ending? FMD you guys are pussies

The main concern is over Leniu, Burton and the Crichton situation.

Losing Laurie is disappointing but not the end of the world. We were always going to lose someone in the backs.

 

[herbert henry1908]

For all the shit Gus copped for cap management after we got rid of him he sure as hell seemed to be able to keep the players he wanted on long term deals and had no trouble getting rid of the ones that didn't work out with minimal to no impact on our salary cap.

While we appear to have made some good decisions since. We look like we will struggle to keep this group together long term and will be stuck paying overs for everyone. I just cant imagine anyone pulling shit like Crichton is doing on Gus. Or us contributing so much money to players we didn't want under him.

Sure everyone would belocked up on lkngterm deals. But Crichton would be locked away for 5 years at the original $500k and not be getting god knows how much more ontop of it.

It's a shame we didnt keep Gus onboard purely for negotiating contracts. His overs to players dont look so bad when faced with the overs it will take to keep together this team.

One of the reasons we’re struggling to retain players right now is because we’re paying 500k+ to have Blake and RCG play at Parra. That’s on Gus.

 

[WestyLife]

Didn't Moylan complain about his deal 6 months after signing it? So the long deals don't even fix that.

Rather have x amount in the cap to spend elsewhere if we lose the player

Yeah 5 years is too long.

 

[martielang]

Who said they're wanting to leave "because" of Mansour?

The point is that if it's only about money, this team gets picked off. The talent level is just too high to stay together in the current NRL structure. The trump card we had was the morale. The boys wanting to stay loyal to each other and build a dynasty together. Yes it's an illusion but illusions can be powerful. Burning Mansour shatters that for a minor gain at best. The fruits can be seen in a few of the boys looking around now.

And you can't blame them. Sorry, but a few days ago plenty on this forum were waxing lyrical about how we didn't owe Sauce anything, how it was a business and we'd be best off ditching him now because there's a shinier, faster version who parses better in the football manager simulation that some on here seem to think footy boils down to. Well, the money other clubs are throwing around is pretty shiny too and the kids were just shown in no uncertain terms that this is just a business. They're responding accordingly.

Brilliant post. Could not hit the nail more on the head if you tried. Such a narrow minded approach by our club which I think will come back to burn us.

 

[herbert henry1908]

None.
The point should be made Gus tied them up before others could come knocking.
His approach done on more measured tone would have been the way. Tie them up on 2-3 year deals before November 1.
Doesn't over commit us and keeps the wolf from the door.

I suspect offering long term deals helped secure them early, though.

In an industry where your employment can be over in a second, long term security is attractive.