King-Gutho94
Coach
- Messages
- 17,613
Got some Hands in there as well.
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!
Got some Hands in there as well.
Penisini, Hands, Longi.
It’s an I not an L.
*Loggi
at least he got the N right .... one step at a time - will get there one day
Who knows? It could've been 20%, it could've been 5%. But it must've been worth something to us or else why would we have agreed to it? And if it wasn't, why didn't every player have a PO?
Talagi's management knew there would probably be high demand for him for 2025 and so committing beyond 2024 represented massive opportunity cost for him. Committing for longer than a year would've come at a much bigger price than whatever he was getting paid in his rookie year. In this case the risk and savings benefit of the PO would've been irrelevant, as you imply. Maybe it only saved $10k, but on the other hand, there was minimal risk of him turning out worthless (or getting injured and becoming worthless) and then activating the PO and us being stuck with him in the 2025 top 30.
*Canberra
First Pollies and now you, poor buggers.
Def fullback
It's not a longer contract, it's the option of a longer contract if things go wrong and he loses value. How much do you reckon Dunster would've been worth on the open market after his knee injury? He is still in the top 30 this year thanks to his PO. That kind of insurance is worth plenty. If you consider car insurance, over three years, fully comprehensive insurance will cost about 10% of the replacement price of the car. Most car owners are happy to pay it. It's what the smart car owners do.
If the PO is worth so much, why is Drown trying so hard to sign a bigger contract without any PO? If it's such a bad outcome for us, why are we happy for him to activate his current PO that includes another one in three years? You use all this dumb bogan logic with your dumb bogan narratives about getting bent over a table but you don't even conduct the slightest analysis of the situation and motives.
Because that's how long we have committed to the players. That's our announcement to our fans. If the player decides against matching that commitment then it's his call, not ours. You merkins need to stop siding with everyone (players, media) against our club.
Why do you think the club agreed to these options? Could it be because the player agreed to sign for unders to help our tight salary cap situation, and took the player options in exchange for it?
Because we stopped offering POs in 2023 and haven't made the finals since?
Regarding the activation deadline, consider that rival offers are unlikely to come with the same deadline, so the longer it goes on, the more likely the player is to stay anyway.
Agreed. Roosters and Dogs are most likely.
Dogs have Burton and plus if it was them news corp journalists would have blabbed as they hate Gould
