Eels in the media

[King-Gutho94]

This Bellamy character sounds like a bit of a dickhead.

Looks like one too during a game.

 

[The Predictor]

He has the runs on the board mate, so I’ll continue to trust his judgement. If the sky is falling then it’s falling for most clubs. We are doing okay and we’re building. If we have cap space then it means we have flexibility. Signing merkins for the sake of it is the sort of thing you’d do. If you were running the club you’d sign a quarter of the players you wanted and our cap would be f**ked.

OMG !!!

 

[The Predictor]

Exactly. Every coach wants to improve their team. None of them have the ‘team they want’. The market ensures that.

Phil Gould and Nick Politis , say HI

 

[84 Baby]

Phil Gould and Nick Politis , say HI

Gould never has the f**ken team he wants. The f**kers he signs never do what he tells them to. Unless he tells them they should go to another club.

 

[Gary Gutful]

A surprising number of people don't understand basic economics.

 

[hineyrulz]

This Bellamy character sounds like a bit of a dickhead.

 

[84 Baby]

A surprising number of people don't understand basic economics.

*ergonomics

 

[Gronk]

 

[TheRam]

Neville Nobodies don’t stop you signing stars. That’s how the salary cap works ffs. They are at different ends of the cap distribution. If we missed out on Klemmer and Taupau it’s because other clubs offered more than us. Maybe Taupau was excited about moving to Brisbane and playing under Kevin Walters?

Yes they do if you sign to many of them you pilock.

 

[TheRam]

Like Moeroa and George Jennings? How about Ryan Morgan and Ben Roberts?

Yes of course. Every team needs riffraff. The good ones know how to get the balance right for them.

Pillock!

 

[TheRam]

Now see you say you know how the NRL club works then you go and post this..

I need a coffee.

Sure champ. You got me.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Yes they do if you sign to many of them you pilock.

You can sign a maximum of thirty players under the cap (and theoretically a minimum of thirty as well). And the more cheap players you sign the more you have to spend at the top end of your cap ffs.

 

[TheRam]

A surprising number of people don't understand basic economics.

And others don't understand quality management.

 

[TheRam]

You can sign a maximum of thirty players under the cap (and theoretically a minimum of thirty as well). And the more cheap players you sign the more you have to spend at the top end of your cap ffs.

And....We....Follow....The....Bouncing....Ball....

Pillock, if you hire to many of these cheapies then it will eat into what you can spend on quality. Der!

I don't believe I actually had to explain that. But then again I know you are just being the normal contrarian and annoying site troll that you are. So sure there it is.

 

[Gary Gutful]

And others don't understand quality management.

And then there are some that understand neither.

 

[TheRam]

And then there are some that understand neither.

And then there are those that understand both.

 

[Gary Gutful]

And....We....Follow....The....Bouncing....Ball....

Pillock, if you hire to many of these cheapies then it will eat into what you can spend on quality. Der!

I don't believe I actually had to explain that. But then again I know you are just being the normal contrarian and annoying site troll that you are. So sure there it is.

Suggest you need to rethink this one Ram.

You have 30 players. The more you spend on cheapies the more you have to spend on quality elsewhere where it's critical (spine, leadership). How can you argue that buying someone more expensive than a cheapy gives you more room in your salary cap? That makes no sense at all!

When people talk about Bellamy they always praise his ability to surround those cheapies with gun players in a good system. He knows that the salary cap is such that cheapies are necessary and has worked out how to maximise their benefits.

 

[84 Baby]

And....We....Follow....The....Bouncing....Ball....

Pillock, if you hire to many of these cheapies then it will eat into what you can spend on quality. Der!

I don't believe I actually had to explain that. But then again I know you are just being the normal contrarian and annoying site troll that you are. So sure there it is.

Yeah that sure is a contrarian view @Poupou Escobar

 

[TheRam]

Suggest you need to rethink this one Ram.

You have 30 players. The more you spend on cheapies the more you have to spend on quality elsewhere where it's critical (spine, leadership). How can you argue that buying someone more expensive than a cheapy gives you more room in your salary cap? That makes no sense at all!

When people talk about Bellamy they always praise his ability to surround those cheapies with gun players in a good system. He knows that the salary cap is such that cheapies are necessary and has worked out how to maximise their benefits.

You are generalising. I was being more specific on our current scenario. See what Pou does? He twists and spins a point of view to the point that the actual real talking point is misunderstood or lost completely and then everyone just piles in with irrelevant nonsense.

In our current situation we need at least one quality outside back, one but preferably two quality props and a quality dummy half.

Now by us signing Davey, who is as a stand alone signing not a bad fringe 1st grader/reserve kind of player that all clubs have in their roster who would be on around what $150-200K a season and the minimum salary being $120K, that means we are potentially paying out $30-80K to a player that we already have plenty of, when we should be saving that $30-80K and putting it towards signing those quality type of players we all know we are short on.

Like all you guys keep harping on about ad nauseam, you need the salary cap space to bring in quality. But then you think that some how other clubs have it but we don't. It comes down to penny pinching wherever you can and spending on high end quality where you need it.

So IMO what we should be doing at present is not signing the Davey's of this would unless they come at the $120K minimum and cutting whatever other players we have similar and signing as many of the quality players we can. Then I would go out and bring in the best juniors I can to fill our top 30 roster on the $120K minimum. We may save around $200K by doing this or more and that way we would have more in the kitty to splash on quality.

Also keep in mind that there might be some shit hot juniors at other clubs who can't get a look in for whatever reason may jump at the chance to be promoted to a top 30 position at our club on the minimum $120K. An opportunity that they may not be getting for a couple more seasons where they are currently at.

The roosters won 2 straight premierships by using this strategy. Think of us like the Roosters for now who have very few genuine local juniors and have to rely on buying high-end talent for their top 20 and then the rest with minimum wage riffraff. Once and if we finally actually start to produce real quality local junior talent again and it starts to put pressure on and push through into the NRL squad, then you reassess this strategy accordingly.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

And....We....Follow....The....Bouncing....Ball....

Pillock, if you hire to many of these cheapies then it will eat into what you can spend on quality. Der!

I don't believe I actually had to explain that. But then again I know you are just being the normal contrarian and annoying site troll that you are. So sure there it is.

The f**k are you on about merkin? You have to sign thirty players. If you have ten of them on f**k all you will have less to spend on top talent than if you have twenty players on f**k all. Why can’t you see this?!? If you only have ten on f**k all it means you have twenty players earning more-than-f**k-all. Conversely, if you have twenty on f**k all there are only ten earning more-than-f**k-all so their share of the salary cap is larger per-merkin.