Certainly Gould being moved on would be a driver and making sure the new guys play nicely together.
The budget cut appears to be more about not having to incur payouts for coaches and players this year vs 2019 so would be less of a factor.
Scott McRae getting the tap on the shoulder would show other cuts but regardless either way they should be less frequent.
If all is going well then no need or they are as you say got too many there and will change direction. Personally as long multiple people are making decisions together then I see it as a good thing
Regardless of which side you are on the new regime should be judged on there performance over a number of years and not just the one just past, which we all agree was not the best of starts. In my opinion we don’t have a top four roster for 2020 but having said that I never believed we quite had one under Gould either. I do think though given four semi final appearances in five seasons under Gould there is pressure on the new regime to get us into the top 8 in 2020 or at the very least compete for the 8 and play much better footy than we did this season where for the most part we were awful basically.
I agree about the roster. I never did feel that under Gus either but for me what is good as the amount of guys off contract over the next 2 seasons. Ideally you want them to kick on with us but if not then there is room to bring guys in something we didn’t have under Gus
I think Gus did a pretty decent job managing our salary cap
He made mistakes sure perhaps RCG may be one example, but overall in my opinion he did a good job which is supported by most media pundits even Paul Kent and Buzz.
He presided over us in a time where there were clearly clubs who were rorting the cap such as the Eels, Bronco’s, Sharks but there were never any suggestions we were guilty of such blatant acts of cheating.
I know many don’t share my view but I truly feel sorry for Gus and the way he was treated in the end. He was totally disrespected and left hung out to dry by the new regime which is rather sad given he did do a lot of great things for this club and turn our fortunes around.
I no longer Uber as a means of something to do and earn a bit of pocket money. I picked up and transported quite a few NRL Panthers and lower grade players during my Uber days and one in particular sticks in my mind, I won’t name him, but he was glowing in his praise of Gus. I didn’t seek out his opinion, it just came out in conversation and this particular player will forever be indebted to Gus for turning him into an NRL player. He is no longer with us sadly but still an NRL player. Draw your own conclusions.
Have to disagree on both counts.Gus took us as far as he could. I’d say the same if anyone else was in the same position. So not an anti Gus.
Gus brought whatever fallout came his way on himself. He has been around to know it is part of the game.
That raises red flags to me and probably explains a few of our issues over the years. Administrators and players shouldn’t be close
Have to disagree on both counts.
Gould's approach to rebuild the club including finals in 4 of his 5 seasons should not be underestimated. His administrative style in more recent years was aggressive - he was chasing success and was prepared to punt on a squad of players and with recruitment. Unfortunately for Gus, Hook's reported personality clashes reflected on Gus and was leveraged to bring back Ivan (to aid in keeping Nathan) which was the end for Gould. I think Gus had a few more tricks up his sleeve which we will unfortunately not get to see.
I didn't read Kilkenny's post as saying Gus and the player(s) were close. I took away that the player was hugely grateful and respectful of Gould and his contribution to the player's development. I see these as important as it helps to build a sense of loyalty to Gus, and that extends to the club. You definitely want players respecting and trusting the club.
I'd like to understand why you think administrators and players shouldn't be close. Often administrators are there much longer than coaching staff and so see players come and go. Players can build rapport and trust with someone at the club that isn't focused on them purely, or responsible for their performance, as a player. This can again lead to players respecting and trusting the club.
Do you think either of these were factors in the Board's decision to move Gould along?Hook didn’t make Gus lie many times or Argue with hook at the trial game.
Yes, Gus hired Hook who delivered 3 finals from 3 attempts. On performance, both men delivered.Gus hired Hook purely on his opinion with not so much as an interview process. Gus took Hook’s side in the argument with Moylan. So plenty was Gus’ doing of the behind the scene issues. Not all on hook not on him both have some blame.
This is the trap most people fall into - defining success as premierships. For a club that had made finals once since 2004 when he arrived, the first step was to become regular finalists. Picking a year in isolation is myopic. 2017 would have been about consolidating the 2016 finals appearance (the first back-to-back finals since 2003-2004) with a young team and not having a repeat of 2015. Starting that season with 2 wins shows the challenge of a young team dealing with expectations at that level.How was the 2017 squad built to chase success? The only 2 halves in the squad were Rookies. Not exactly a side that screamed top 4. Let alone premiers
If this was happening then I agree 100%. I don't think it was though. I'm sure Gould had a view of what the core of the team looked like (these are the ones that got the longer deals) and was prepared to back his ability to move players mid-contract if they weren't delivering to expectations. We all saw this a number of times - no reason to expect it would be different with RCG, Blake, Kikau, etc. I think Gould would see relationships with players (positive environment, winning culture, etc) as reasons for the player to accept less money, rather than feeling compelled to offer more (as we saw with Peach, Crichton & others).If the guy making the decision is close to a player he will be less likely to stand his ground on length of deals. May pay extra to keep them happy.
Do you think either of these were factors in the Board's decision to move Gould along?
Yes, Gus hired Hook who delivered 3 finals from 3 attempts. On performance, both men delivered.
I'm not saying Gus was perfect. My original post was that the Board (in particular the Chair) wanted Ivan back to keep Nathan. IMO Dave crumbled to the media pressure at the time around retaining Nathan. So they leveraged Hook's unpopularity (apparently from his strict training and fitness regime). As a side note, has anyone other than Ciraldo & RCG spoken about Hook's manner? There may have been, but I can't recall it.
Being kept out of the loop on this change would have been a key factor in Gus moving on (as well as the off field antics of reserve graders and fringe first graders).
Are you saying Gus should have backed Moylan over the coach? I don't think Moylan's circumstances help the point you're trying to make.
This is the trap most people fall into - defining success as premierships. For a club that had made finals once since 2004 when he arrived, the first step was to become regular finalists. Picking a year in isolation is myopic. 2017 would have been about consolidating the 2016 finals appearance (the first back-to-back finals since 2003-2004) with a young team and not having a repeat of 2015. Starting that season with 2 wins shows the challenge of a young team dealing with expectations at that level.
If this was happening then I agree 100%. I don't think it was though. I'm sure Gould had a view of what the core of the team looked like (these are the ones that got the longer deals) and was prepared to back his ability to move players mid-contract if they weren't delivering to expectations. We all saw this a number of times - no reason to expect it would be different with RCG, Blake, Kikau, etc. I think Gould would see relationships with players (positive environment, winning culture, etc) as reasons for the player to accept less money, rather than feeling compelled to offer more (as we saw with Peach, Crichton & others).
Penrith isn't the city and it never will be. Why would a young millionaire move from the Eastern Suburbs move to Penrith?Gus’ drawing board was just pick another junior... not go raid other sides like Roosters do when they have a poor and as Souths are doing now
Good first graders but far from elite. This is why we have to punt on juniors and Gus knew it
No reason you couldn’t have both. We will never know but I suspect a few guys were paid on potential not worth. Had they been paid on worth then maybe we could of added a solid FG or 2 and might of been all we needed.
Someone like Sam Williams in the 17 team for example. Keeps Bryce out of the halves and stops us being 2 from 9 and finish top 4.
little tweeks like that was all that was missing
You wont get those stars to move to Penrith unless you overpay though. Then you create another Salary Cap problem.
Gus' issue was that he overpaid to keep guys here based on what their potential earnings could be if they continued their development in 2 years from now. And those guys development didn't continue. He was using the Ponga model for Newcastle. Lock a talent up for 4-5 years at a decreased rate vs what you could sign them for in 2 years....therefore, net-net you underpay and get value for them.
Unfortunately...those players just didn't kick on to what he was projecting and expecting and thus those contracts where ultimately a weight around Gus' neck.