2020 season

[soc123_au]

Yep, you got me. That's why I've been posting here since 2012 - waiting for this moment to big note myself. Now excuse me while I bask in my moment of glory.

I applaud your patience in waiting for your moment in the sun.

 

[franklin2323]

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

 

[Abacus]

I applaud your patience in waiting for your moment in the sun.

Gotta play the long game...

 

[Kilkenny]

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.

 

[franklin2323]

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

 

[Kilkenny]

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.

 

[franklin2323]

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.

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

 

[Abacus]

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.

 

[franklin2323]

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.

Hook didn’t make Gus lie many times or Argue with hook at the trial game.
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.

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

What is best for a player and what is best for the club are often different things. 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.

 

[Abacus]

Hook didn’t make Gus lie many times or Argue with hook at the trial game.

Do you think either of these were factors in the Board's decision to move Gould along?

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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).

 

[Pomoz]

Further to Abacus's excellent comments about Gus, in relation to moving on players that don't perform to their contract value, Gus dealt with this in a podcast that I listened to (so this is from his own words not a journalist) dealing with the situation with Newcastle and Ponga. He was asked how much is he worth and what of he is signed and then doesn't deliver. Gus said every signing is a risk, since nobody can predict whether somebody will deliver. If they don't, you move them on to a club that will get more value form him and sometimes that comes at a cost. His point was a good player is always worth something and you just cut your losses and go back to the drawing board. He added that is why it is important to have a talent pool with a succession plan lined up for every position. When a position is short, you get the recruiting team onto it and go out and find more juniors if necessary to prime the pump.

That is why I don't buy the view that Gus saddled as with dead-weight long term contracts. He would wheel and deal and move players on. His history supports this. The fact overs were paid fro Parramatta and Canterbury for DWZ and Blake speaks volumes about the negotiating power of the three wise men, more than it does about Gus's contracts. The Roosters do it all the time. Who set up the Roosters system?.....Gus.

 

[franklin2323]

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

 

[franklin2323]

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).

Well I can’t speak for the board but I highly doubt Hook was the only one he had a disagreement with.
Nor do I think Jed was the only one re-signed without consultation with others. Throw in I think we needed a change and it was time for Gus to go.

Assistant coaches quit due to Hook. Then the Captain has his issues and within months the coach is re-signed. I am sure there was other stuff never made public

Do you think the Academy was built to purely make the finals? Or to take the team to the top? Was always going to be a time when the expectations changed.

Shouldn’t the coaches and welfare staff do that sort of stuff with the players though? How many people in the work force have a relationship with The HR or upper management?

 

[Dave's mate]

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

Penrith isn't the city and it never will be. Why would a young millionaire move from the Eastern Suburbs move to Penrith?

 

[franklin2323]

Penrith isn't the city and it never will be. Why would a young millionaire move from the Eastern Suburbs move to Penrith?

Elite players rarely move but we signed 3 guys from coastal clubs for next year so it can be done

 

[Dave's mate]

Elite players rarely move but we signed 3 guys from coastal clubs for next year so it can be done

Good first graders but far from elite. This is why we have to punt on juniors and Gus knew it

 

[franklin2323]

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

 

[Big Mick]

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.

 

[franklin2323]

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.

Outside of family reasons elite players rarely move to smaller clubs I get that.

The top 13 were always good as making the semis proves. Where we fell away as the kids got better were the depth.

Seg and Soward going was a good decision. Not bringing in experienced guys as a backup plan hurt the side and is the downside to going all in on youth

 

[Panther Pete]

Daily Telegraph has ranked every teams spine and have us in 12th place. I seem to recall Fox Sports did the same thing recently and had us around the same spot.