Contracts, the modern game and our beloved Sharks.

[sladden road]

So this has been on my mind for a bit and seeing the talk around a Chads player options moves me to post.

I will say upfront that contracts can and will be broken, yet...
IMO one of the big pieces of salary cap struggle is not only the price of a player, but the length of time offered. Also options.
At the end of Choppers reign he was the recruitment officer and head coach and we signed too many long term contracts for big coin. Some of these were destined to not work out and it looks like most of them have not.
Now I get it to make a club/offer attractive time and money is considered but why so many 4 year or longer contracts. All of them have come back to bite us. The other poorest run clubs in this predicament, doggies, tigers and manly (hi Des)all have one thing in common -backended or expensive contracts for underperforming players.
This has to be why Mooney was brought back- to stop these f**k ups.
Just throwing it out there, the “good”clubs don’t seem to have to lock down players long term on big money, or at least a bunch of them like we have.
I like what the Stick has done in Canberra and not get sucked into paying overs for a good player even if he is successful in your system.
So how would we move forward?

Then first is reduce contract length to 2 to 3 years . For me I’d always put a club option at the back. And no more player options, that just trash.. who signed off on this.FMFF.

flame on.

 

[bad boy bubby]

Great post @sladden road.
Don't be surprised if we end up doing a few one year contracts for next year. There are a shit load more quality players off contract the year after.
It's such a shame that the Flange never got the chance to answer the debacle he created with these contracts. I daresay that Chad wouldn't be here now, but Flanju would..... haha

 

[bad boy bubby]

Angus Chrichton is apparently only doing a one year deal at the Roosters.
Read into that whatever you want, but he's been advised to do it for a reason

 

[bad boy bubby]

When does the new TV deal start?????
How many managers are telling their players to wait until the new deal gets going, and to check out all the new cash thats gunna be flowing.

 

[Frenzy.]

Angus Chrichton is apparently only doing a one year deal at the Roosters.
Read into that whatever you want, but he's been advised to do it for a reason

So The Sharks switch the eggs to the other basket.

Is he still managed by David Rawlings?

 

[Sharkman]

Yeah, great point.

I like the idea of, as an operating model, not offering contracts for more than 3years. What would be the exception to the rule though?

Would you do it for a Kaylan Ponga? 4yrs @ 1.1 or would you say we don’t do 4 yr contracts but we’ll give 3yrs at say 1.35.
Bump up the price a bit but keep the years down.

On contracts in general, I don’t see it getting any easier for clubs to manage players who are chasing more coin for what they signed for, regardless of the length.

 

[bad boy bubby]

So The Sharks switch the eggs to the other basket.

Is he still managed by David Rawlings?

I don't know who he is managed by, sorry.
At least he won't be part of the code breaking ideal

 

[Weaponhead]

OP - good post Sladden. The Flange did some great business early and mid tenure. Later in his tenure, he made some poor calls on losing Bird and Maloney. 4 year deals on Moyza and Dugan were too long. He seemed to intent on getting experienced names to keep the premiership window open.

Getting Mooney back provides a lot more confidence that roster decisions will be well considered.

 

[2012....Sharks Year]

Great post @sladden road.
Don't be surprised if we end up doing a few one year contracts for next year. There are a shit load more quality players off contract the year after.
It's such a shame that the Flange never got the chance to answer the debacle he created with these contracts. I daresay that Chad wouldn't be here now, but Flanju would..... haha

I’d be avoiding one year deals with the new Brisbane side in ‘23. Will no doubt inflate some prices. I’d be hoping for 2 year deals for the younger guys possibly with a club option for a third. The old fellas can go year to year imo.

 

[bad boy bubby]

I’d be avoiding one year deals with the new Brisbane side in ‘23. Will no doubt inflate some prices. I’d be hoping for 2 year deals for the younger guys possibly with a club option for a third. The old fellas can go year to year imo.

In the next posts I explained why. The new TV deal triggers more cash. I agree with you but dont be surprised if the one year trend continues. Plus like I also said, there are better players coming off contract the year after.

 

[2012....Sharks Year]

I’m only talking about say Toby.... WK.... Talakai and Tracey. The rest can go year to year except maybe SJ if he comes back well.

 

[bad boy bubby]

I’m only talking about say Toby.... WK.... Talakai and Tracey. The rest can go year to year except maybe SJ if he comes back we’ll.

pretty spot on with that post.

 

[txta2]

And all those off contracted players have now turned the season on for the club. Those players are now playing if their life depended on it. Player walk out??? Hahahaha
Genius move by the club, absolute genius.

 

[Frenzy.]

So this has been on my mind for a bit amd seeing the talk around a Chads player options moves me to post.

I will say upfront that contracts can and will be broken, yet...
IMO one of the big pieces of salary cap struggle is not only the price of a player, but the length of time offered. Also options.
At the end of Choppers reign he was the recruitment officer and head coach and we signed too many long term contracts for big coin. Some of these were destined to not work out and it looks like most of them have not.
Now I get it to make a club/offer attractive time and money is considered but why so many 4 year or longer contracts. All of them have come back to bite us. The other poorest run clubs in this predicament, doggies, tigers and manly (hi Des)all have one thing in common -backended or expensive contracts for underperforming players.
This has to be why Mooney was brought back- to stop these f**k ups.
Just throwing it out there, the “good”clubs don’t seem to have to lock down players long term on big money, or at least a bunch of them like we have.
I like what the Stick has done in Canberra and not get sucked into paying overs for a good player even if he is successful in your system.
So how would we move forward:

Then first is reduce contrast length to 2 to 3 years . For me I’d always put a club option at the back. And no more player options, that just trash.. who signed off on this.FMFF.

flame on.

Sort of tangential but I have a story to share on this. I work for NSW Health and the way it has always been is if you recruit a Health worker into a permanent role it is forever. This is how government departments get stuck with poor employees. There is clearly not the same big money involved but the principle here is parallel

In my particularly corner of Health we have made a recent decision to only recruit to 12 month temporary positions or casual positions so there is a get out at the end for the organisation.

 

[sladden road]

Angus Chrichton is apparently only doing a one year deal at the Roosters.
Read into that whatever you want, but he's been advised to do it for a reason

I would chop a finger off to get Crichton

 

[lolesi]

i guess we are so used to paying overs, and for longer because it was the only way we could attract quality players.

different story for roosters, storm etc because they back themselves as a club that the player will want to stay after 1-2 years, and understanding player worth and the probable financial situation the club will be in 3-4 years down the way.

it would be much easier to sell the resigning of a player when you have just made the top 4 for the fifth straight year.

 

[Tiger Shark]

Alot of good points on here. I think there's a time and place for a 4 year deal, but those are for the elite, the ones you know that will always perform and you'll get value for money.

The Sharks had way too many 4 year deals.

I'm a fan of the one year deals with a club option, gives the club the ability to look around and move them on, or if they're performing keep them.

I think the staggering off players contracts is important too. We'd be in a pickle if we wanted to keep all these players.

 

[lolesi]

Sort of tangential but I have a story to share on this. I work for NSW Health and the way it has always been is if you recruit a Health worker into a permanent role it is forever. This is how government departments get stuck with poor employees. There is clearly not the same big money involved but the principle here is parallel

In my particularly corner of Health we have made a recent decision to only recruit to 12 month temporary positions or casual positions so there is a get out at the end for the organisation.

completely agree with this, removing a person from a government job is near impossible ! what security they have.

 

[sharknows]

A

i guess we are so used to paying overs, and for longer because it was the only way we could attract quality players.

different story for roosters, storm etc because they back themselves as a club that the player will want to stay after 1-2 years, and understanding player worth and the probable financial situation the club will be in 3-4 years down the way.

it would be much easier to sell the resigning of a player when you have just made the top 4 for the fifth straight year.

And they have Uncle Nick’s paper bags as well.

 

[R-15-3]

Braily is the only player in our squad I’d offer a 4+ year deal to.