hineyrulz
Post Whore
- Messages
- 159,540
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!
Get it up yaTime for the dog again
What it means is players don't want to come for market value, they want overs. The problem there is if you 'improve' your squad by signing stars on overs, you just end up locking in a weak squad long term. The highly paid stars mean you have to surround them with reserve graders and kids, and then when the kids improve and need an upgrade you can't fit them under the cap.
That was my second point. We were committed to Brown but traded away the certainty for a few dollars but we didn’t provide contingency that should he leave, we have a prospect who’s contract overlaps Brown’s option
It wasn't a few dollars. Signing a young player on a very long contract (not just a couple of years with POs afterwards) means you have to compensate them for being unable to go to market for the duration. Three years plus seven years of player options is a lot cheaper than ten years locked in. Look how much Drown got from Newcastle compared to the POs that were supposedly so valuable here. He could've activated his PO and still had more down the track. Instead he gave it all up for huge amounts of cash. That's how much we saved by offering the POs in the first place.
The prospects have player managers who ensure the timing of their contracts suits them, not the club who hopes to string them along as a plan B.
Is that what the Dogs are doing , sure you can come up with your illuminating theories, but the real world survives differently. Doing virtually nothing after 2021/2022 has been the issue no matter what excuse you come up with.
Ignoring value here because in general we’re talking about good players that we can assume will play well, I think we are sort of stuck in “we’re still building a contender” mode instead of realising we do have parts of a contender and maybe it isn’t the worst move to unshackle the purse a bit to get even more parts
Absence of legends seems a debatable excuse as well…I highly doubt Sanders signed with the raiders because of Laurie Daley or Ricky (the player). I mean, you’re not playing with these guys.
And? All that tells me is that the player agents are better able to maximise player value then and if they can then surely the inverse is possible. Is/would someone else be better able to do it? Maybe. But pointing out what hasn’t worked, isn’t scapegoating.
Sanders went to the Raiders for reportedly $400k. In the end money talks.
Have the Dogs won the comp yet?
We had signed our marquee half long term on elite money, didn’t make sense to compete for Sanders. We have positions that need to be filled and have been slow and apparently unwilling to pay to fill them, that’s now an issue , decent cap space to spend and virtually no one out there unless they get released or pushed out .
That's assuming he has no PO in the Newy contract and as you say oft, we just don't know that.
Of course not, but they have given their side a reset and have inspired their fans , they filled positions of need quickly and with good players, different strokes to us. Their supporters have got on board and seem excited.
I'd say the Dogs are compensating players outside the cap. Remember the shares Laundy supposedly offered to Fa'asuamaleaui, that included a buy back at cost price if they lost value? Or are you simple enough to think Gould just knows who the good players are while other clubs don't? f**king pEnRiTh DiDn'T rEaLiSe CrIcHtOn WaS aNy GoOd! tHeY cOuLdN't "SeLl ThE cLuB" tO hIm!
You haven't even asked yourself why though, have you? You just assume they think we don't need good players.
If we have a difficult negotiating team it's because player managers are accustomed to exploiting the desperation in our club. They have a stable of players and the ones who want to win get shopped to the Storm, Broncos and Chooks. The ones who want to cash in get shopped to the likes of Parra, Wests and St George. It won't end unless we take a stand, and the push back from managers looks like dopes being fed bullshit about how hard the club is to deal with.
Is it really about the purse? Teams are required to spend between 97.5% and 100% of the salary cap, a difference of about $300k. I doubt Serdaris, MON and the board get to stick the savings up their nose. If there's a disparity in spending it's outside the cap, and finding that money is a lot bigger than just opening the purse strings.
Sure, but pointing out what "hasn't worked" and ignoring what has is tainting your analysis with survivor bias. Even the best clubs have recruitment/retention fails. Even the worst clubs have wins. You can only really judge their results on the field. Sure we've missed the finals three straight years, but that was preceded by four straight years in the finals. I'm sure the two periods are connected. There is nothing to support the idea that we were lucky then but we are poorly run now. It's as feasible as us being well run then but unlucky now.
