Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Of course not. Matt Arthur will be in the top 30 at age 21. Suaalii and Walsh were playing regular first grade at 18. Arthur isn't being treated like they were. Plenty of merkins are top 30 at the age of 21. It's not some kind of special treatment. It's just a projection based on his ability right now, aged 18.
How many 18 year olds are given a top 30 spot in three seasons time, having only played against kids? I guess that’s the issue and where our opinions differ. I don’t think it’s necessary to make that projection so early on what MA has shown to date. The fact his dad is the first grade coach and a member of the r and r team, and we’ve decided to take that gamble with Jake isn’t a good look IMO.
Easy to say in hindsight. Hastings was dominating the under 20s comp at 17. It was reasonable to expect that he might become an NRL star. So reasonable that those proven bums the Roosters thought he was worth the risk.
I'd say a superstar will be getting better offers than the bottom of the top 30.
I'd say Hastings performed better in under 20s than Mataele did in Flegg. This is the difference between talent and mere physical maturity that clubs need to weigh up. In the case of Matt Arthur they're convinced of his talent, and are projecting his physical maturity to have caught up by the year he turns 21. I don't think it's as controversial as merkins are making out.
I reckon plenty of them. Did you read the article posted by emjaycee?
A really good read. Thanks for sharing.
So we take media articles as gospel now?
As far as potential NRL number 9's already in the club and not part of the top 30 in '24 and '25, I reckon MA is probably the only one. So while he may never become the 'superstar' talent of Walsh or Sualii, locking him up so we get to be the ones that find out how good he ends up being is probably worth the 3.33% of our 2026 roster spots.
Isn’t he already contracted to us for 24 and 25? Don’t we have that benefit anyway, at least for this year? Let’s see how he goes in NSW Cup and if he kills it then upgrade him for 26 then.
Sure and that might have been the clubs opening position with his agent.
No. We make him play for us or he doesn’t play footy for 2 years. We don’t give a shit as he isn’t costing us anything. It’s going to be far worse for his development. Bloody hell, I hope that’s not the reason we relented as that would be embarrassing from a negotiating perspective. We have all the leverage.
Was he already signed for 2024 and '25?
I believe so. Zero tackle (I know this is unreliable) has him listed for 24 and 25 and OA mentioned that he was contracted for the next two seasons and the third year extension may have been a way to get him on a development contract or something.
Matt Arthur? Replaceable... walk.
Here, here
Like I said, I see it often on the NRL signings page. I do take that as gospel.
There are some very, very ordinary players in the top 30 at every club. Giving a top 30 spot to a 21-year-old junior star with no NRL experience isn't the risk you think it is. Walsh and Suaalii were in the top 17 by Matt Arthur's age; a much bigger risk.
We have a different understanding of what a top 30 spot entails. It is one player out of thirty, potentially on minimum salary.
3.33% of roster slots and potentially only 1% of the cap, which is what the minimum salary represents in 2023.
And genetics will be able to sort him out with the bald thing. Sigh the kid for Life!!
Looks like the club learned nothing after what has happened with Jake, the club is full of people that always do the right thing at least. Talk about putting in wanted pressure on the
