Cameron McInnes

[BLM01]

well put together mate,you sure your not one of those managers your talking about.

Definitely not
but their job is not rocket science

 

[BLM01]

No good of managing a salary cap and filling up the place with people who are already old and will be with you until they're even older.

Nor is it good to manage your salary cap by buying inferior to what you've got regardless of how cheap they are especially in the spine.

Well that last statement doesn’t make sense someone has to manage the $$$
Cam is obviously gonna get a pay rise for next year wether he stays or not
So it is up to us to manage that and our cap if we
cant or do not want to afford that rise
so of course the result will be we have to get someone cheaper or inferior as his MV has increased.

 

[qld redvee]

If McInnes can pick up a big juicy contract with the Tigers or whoever then I wish him all the best & thank him for his years of loyal service. Credit where it’s due he was a good Millward signing at the time. BUT Hunt is on the books for another 3 seasons so surely everyone can understand why the club hasn’t put a
$600k contract to him. McInnes for 3yrs is $1.8M is expensive compared to McCulloughi $800K over 2yrs. Gives us more free money for Angus Crichton.

Mad agree with you BUT if McCulloch is on a contract now for anywhere between 600 + K this year then would he agree to move for a reduced contract ? Herein lies the problem . With his age your $$$ would be acceptable I wouldnt want the club shelling out anything higher for him

 

[Old Timer]

Well that last statement doesn’t make sense someone has to manage the $$$
Cam is obviously gonna get a pay rise for next year wether he stays or not
So it is up to us to manage that and our cap if we
cant or do not want to afford that rise
so of course the result will be we have to get someone cheaper or inferior as his MV has increased.

We already have significant spine issues affecting our on field results so increasing them by dispensing with Mc Innes just because someone is cheaper without the poster I responded to knowing what Mc Innes either wants or if he is part of our plans makes no sense let alone for a busted 31 year old reportedly for 3 years.

 

[Maddragon99]

We already have significant spine issues affecting our on field results so increasing them by dispensing with Mc Innes just because someone is cheaper without the poster I responded to knowing what Mc Innes either wants or if he is part of our plans makes no sense let alone for a busted 31 year old reportedly for 3 years.

It’s just media speculation at the moment but yes I agree McCullough is a puzzling choice. Brandon Smith would cost more but also brings a lot more, he’s a far superior player

 

[Splinters]

Not that it helps much to point this out, I suppose, but doesn't the whole problem go back to the fact that we gave Hunt an outrageously long contract with an option in his favor that he has already taken up?

So the "logic" of sunk costs tells us that either Hunt plays hooker or he will "have to" play 7 (bcs of the idea that he "can't" play reserves bcs we paid too much for him). But if he plays 7, he will be blocking some young halves who good judges suggest are potentially once-in-a-generation players, e.g., Sullivan.

On this basis, the only choices going into 2022 are that Hunt either plays hooker or he plays reserves. I think this is where McInnes, and him playing lock, fits into the puzzle.

In a way, the choice for 2022 is not Hunt vs McInnes, it is Hunt vs McInnes vs Sullivan et al, isn't it?

Anyway, I'd rather lose McInnes and keep Sullivan

 

[qld redvee]

and reading in todays tele the tigers hooker liddle wants to make the 9 his own and is working with robbie farrah to improve his game .. so maybe Mcinness isnt assured of the hooking spot with tigers , has madge got other plans for him like our tiger intruder hinted at . Tigers also supposed to have a young hooker ex broncos that could be a gun so not sure if they would want cam blocking his path down the track if that mentioned 4 year deal was true ... i reckon we should stick with cam for another 2 years with option for 3rd in clubs favour .. that gives brittain as our cc hooker and look at pathways for the future. worst case scenario we manufacture a hooker ( a la dean young ) or pick up a cheap young kid blocked in another team

 

[goldiesaintz]

and reading in todays tele the tigers hooker liddle wants to make the 9 his own and is working with robbie farrah to improve his game .. so maybe Mcinness isnt assured of the hooking spot with tigers , has madge got other plans for him like our tiger intruder hinted at . Tigers also supposed to have a young hooker ex broncos that could be a gun so not sure if they would want cam blocking his path down the track if that mentioned 4 year deal was true ... i reckon we should stick with cam for another 2 years with option for 3rd in clubs favour .. that gives brittain as our cc hooker and look at pathways for the future. worst case scenario we manufacture a hooker ( a la dean young ) or pick up a cheap young kid blocked in another team

All good, QRV.

I think Cam needs some love from the new coaching department and all will be ok.
My diagnosis is that's he's suffering separation anxiety from not having McGregor around geeing him up.

A bit of tough love with a few hugs and butt pats from Hook & Co and we should be good to go by round one.

 

[Dragonslayer]

Not that it helps much to point this out, I suppose, but doesn't the whole problem go back to the fact that we gave Hunt an outrageously long contract with an option in his favor that he has already taken up?

So the "logic" of sunk costs tells us that either Hunt plays hooker or he will "have to" play 7 (bcs of the idea that he "can't" play reserves bcs we paid too much for him). But if he plays 7, he will be blocking some young halves who good judges suggest are potentially once-in-a-generation players, e.g., Sullivan.

On this basis, the only choices going into 2022 are that Hunt either plays hooker or he plays reserves. I think this is where McInnes, and him playing lock, fits into the puzzle.

In a way, the choice for 2022 is not Hunt vs McInnes, it is Hunt vs McInnes vs Sullivan et al, isn't it?

Anyway, I'd rather lose McInnes and keep Sullivan

Nailed it in your first paragraph.

Now, we are in the very ugly position of having argueably higher quality halves coming through in Sullivan and Amone, and to a lesser extent throw in Clune. These guys aren't going to hang around 3 more years whilst we continue to put lipstick on the pig and try to manufacture a position for it.

 

[boardlumps62]

Reporter on Twitter reporting that our interest has died down on McCullough... everyone just relax

That's good

 

[possm]

No good of managing a salary cap and filling up the place with people who are already old and will be with you until they're even older.

Nor is it good to manage your salary cap by buying inferior to what you've got regardless of how cheap they are especially in the spine.

As with Frizell, if a player wants to leave and will go to the highest bidder, it is best to find a replacement. The only risky player Griffin has purchased so far is Bird and from all reports, Bird seems to be on the road to full recovery. In the same way, all reports are that McCullough is reported to be trainging hard and without any injury worries right now.

I am not in favour of the McCullough recruitment. I'd rather we go for someone like B Smith from the Storm if McInnes is set to leave. But I have full faith in Griffin and am sure he knows what he is doing. I think all he is looking for is a hooker who is a good fit for the team/club and who is willing and able to follow his instructions and game plan.

A lower priced hooker would also be a bonus, given Griffin needs to carefully manage the roster he has inherited. At the end of 2021, there should only be one player Griffin is stuck with and hopefully he will turn Hunt around to be an effective halfback.

 

[possm]

Mad agree with you BUT if McCulloch is on a contract now for anywhere between 600 + K this year then would he agree to move for a reduced contract ? Herein lies the problem . With his age your $$$ would be acceptable I wouldnt want the club shelling out anything higher for him

If the Bronco's are not interested in off-loading McCullough in a similar manner to what they did with Bird, then they can have him for another season (until his contract runs out) and if this ends up being the situation, then McInnes will be with us for at least another season.

So if Hunt does not fire in the early rounds of 2021, it is quite possible that he moves to 9 and McInnes moves to 13 with eithr Clune or Sullivan moving to 7.

All still up in the air but good to see Griffin knows how to manage these situations.

 

[Lindsay Moss]

I'd say McInnes is gone and will want to leave before round 1 this season. This is why Griffin is chasing McCullough. B Smith from the Storm is only available for season 2022 and beyond so we will be down a first grade hooker if Griffin does not move Hunt to 9 or if he can't find a replacement in time.

if Mcinnes goes move hunt to hooker bring up sullivan why would you buy a 31 year old McCULLOUGH save the money for our young crop.

 

[dragon thomo]

SPOT ON LINDSAY

 

[Forbes Creek Dragons]

if Mcinnes goes move hunt to hooker bring up sullivan why would you buy a 31 year old McCULLOUGH save the money for our young crop.

Let’s all hope McInnes stays and Hunt finds form at 7 but I fully agree that would be the best way to go. It will open a pathway for the best performing of our young crop and give us time to go into the market with money when Hunt leaves to try to get a real topline 9.

 

[hewi]

According to Fox News Griffin wants McCullough as our starting hooker this year. If that’s the case I can’t see McInnes Signing a new contract with us.

 

[goldiesaintz]

According to Fox News Griffin wants McCullough as our starting hooker this year. If that’s the case I can’t see McInnes Signing a new contract with us.

Like wow!

 

[Maddragon99]

Not that it helps much to point this out, I suppose, but doesn't the whole problem go back to the fact that we gave Hunt an outrageously long contract with an option in his favor that he has already taken up?

So the "logic" of sunk costs tells us that either Hunt plays hooker or he will "have to" play 7 (bcs of the idea that he "can't" play reserves bcs we paid too much for him). But if he plays 7, he will be blocking some young halves who good judges suggest are potentially once-in-a-generation players, e.g., Sullivan.

On this basis, the only choices going into 2022 are that Hunt either plays hooker or he plays reserves. I think this is where McInnes, and him playing lock, fits into the puzzle.

In a way, the choice for 2022 is not Hunt vs McInnes, it is Hunt vs McInnes vs Sullivan et al, isn't it?

Anyway, I'd rather lose McInnes and keep Sullivan

Yes that is 100% correct plus the amount of McInnes’s new upgraded contract. Question is, can the club justify paying McInnes what he deserves if we can’t guarantee he’ll be playing 9?

 

[Kylez3]

 

[adragon4over50years]

Yes that is 100% correct plus the amount of McInnes’s new upgraded contract. Question is, can the club justify paying McInnes what he deserves if we can’t guarantee he’ll be playing 9?