Hoppa

[Avenger]

You actually being serious Pou?

You want us to get rid of the best player in the comp?

If it wasn't for Hayne, the score line would of been embarrassing on Saturday Night and we would of been fighting the Sharks for the spoon.

Jodeci, Pou likes to play devils advocate for every topic on every thread, everyday. That's how he gets his post count so high. However there are morons out there like Diablo who reckons he goes missing. So I don't know his MO.

Hayne stays with the Eels until he departs this world in any capacity available. That is how much I value him.

 

[Gronk]

What a f**king stupid idea. Flick a player that EVERY other team would want in a heartbeat.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

You actually being serious Pou?

You want us to get rid of the best player in the comp?

How has the best player in the comp helped us these past five years? Even the Cowboys have done f**k all since Thurston became an elite player.

If you pay these guys what they're worth you're paying them too much of your salary cap.

You either need to pay them unders (i.e. less than they're worth) like SBW and Cam Smith or you need to f**k them off and get a better balanced team.

Why can you idiots not f**king see that? It's not a choice between having Hayne in the team and not having him in the exact same team. If we got rid of him the entire balance of the team could be changed. As long as we've got him on the books it won't be.

Do you know why Manly have been successful for so long? Because several (not just one) big name players have been taking pay cuts to stay together. This is because they came up together. None of our players came into grade with Jarryd Hayne (except, arguably, Tim Mannah), meaning they're not going to take pay cuts to play with him, and I doubt he's going to take a pay cut to play with them (why should he when he does everything?)

Manly currently have a bunch of stars on unders. Until DCE demanded more cash they would have continued to have a bunch of stars on unders, including DCE who would be on less than $500k right now. When Manly give him the $1M+ he's asking for they will start to struggle, I guarantee it. They will come back to the field.

If it wasn't for Hayne, the score line would of been embarrassing on Saturday Night and we would of been fighting the Sharks for the spoon.

Except we wouldn't because we could afford to have a bunch of solid players working hard for one another and learning how to play footy without being dependant on Jarryd Hayne.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

What a f**king stupid idea. Flick a player that EVERY other team would want in a heartbeat.

You mean if money was no object?

 

[Avenger]

You have no idea Pou you stupid merkin. Are you saying that nobody else is on the money that Hayne is on? Everyone has them. Ours just happens to be the best in the world. You truly are a halfwit.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Yeah we need to punt Hayne so we can pick a few more average forwards hey Pou??

What about a few more good forwards and another centre?

 

[Poupou Escobar]

You have no idea Pou you stupid merkin. Are you saying that nobody else is on the money that Hayne is on? Everyone has. Ours just happens to be the best on the world. You truly are a halfwit.

Why would they be if they're not as good? And even if they were, we know that at least the Manly players have been taking unders. I'm sure the Melbourne players took pay cuts to stay together after getting caught cheating (and not having to give the money back). If SBW and Burgess were willing to keep taking less than they're worth they wouldn't be going back to rugby, but I'm sure they're both on unders right now.

Who at our club would take a pay cut? Hayne? You idiots worship him, as do most/all of our other players. Why would he take less money to have to deal with that responsibility?

 

[Gronk]

Why would they be if they're not as good? And even if they were, we know that at least the Manly players have been taking unders. I'm sure the Melbourne players took pay cuts to stay together after getting caught cheating (and not having to give the money back). If SBW and Burgess were willing to keep taking less than they're worth they wouldn't be going back to rugby, but I'm sure they're both on unders right now.

Who at our club would take a pay cut? Hayne? You idiots worship him, as do most/all of our other players. Why would he take less money to have to deal with that responsibility?

As does Joey Johns - "the most complete footballer I have ever seen".

 

[hineyrulz]

What about a few more good forwards and another centre?

That could work.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

As does Joey Johns - "the most complete footballer I have ever seen".

Right. And a player that good is happy to stay for less than top dollar is he?

 

[Gronk]

Right. And a player that good is happy to stay for less than top dollar is he?

He's a Hillsong lad, merkin. The Hillsong mob are not that into cash. :sarcasm:

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Everyone's into cash, merkin. We can help a lot more merkins with it than without it.

 

[hindy111]

Most team nowdays who win the titles have a balanced team as Pou has suggested.A look at grand final teams of late

Saints
Roosters
Manly( dce & foran where not on overs till recently id say prob next contracts)
dogs
Melbourne(rorted the cap)
warriors

Everyone knows now the roosters are rorting the cap.Its an 8 million dollar team.You have to have a well balanced side otherwise you going to be very weak in one area.
The thing is thou if Hayne is on 1 million say.What do you think guy like Barba slater boyd stewart Tompkins dugan are on?
All would be 650+ so question is hayne worth the extra 200-300k?

What would you prefer

ziiliman - 300k Hayne - 1 mill
lussick- 350k Wicks - 150 k
sandow 500k Albert Kelly 200k
norman-430k Austin 350k
Hoppa 500k will chambers - 300k

 

[mrpwnd]

If you pay these guys what they're worth you're paying them too much of your salary cap.

The problem with Parramatta isn't that they are paying players what they're worth, nor is it even a salary cap issue. It's dumb recruitment decisions made in several desperate bids(notably during Kearney and Stuart era) to fill up spots that you lot felt was worth paying any player overs for(i.e. Sandow, Norman, Hoppa, etcetc).
I stated this in another thread, the only player that Parra have invested a good amount of money into and actually have gotten some return from, is Jarryd Hayne.

You either need to pay them unders (i.e. less than they're worth) like SBW and Cam Smith or you need to f**k them off and get a better balanced team.

This is pretty anecdotal lol, most people would assume SBW and Cam would be pretty highly ranked in terms of yearly earnings. Or are you just pulling examples out of your arse thinking people will take it at face value?

If we got rid of him the entire balance of the team could be changed. As long as we've got him on the books it won't be.

Again, read my first comment. You can beat this topic all you want, but it won't change the fact that your deflecting several more pressing issues in the club.

 

[hindy111]

I don't think Hayne is a problem.He is earning his keep.Lussicks a dud and hoppa is on over as is sandow and Norman.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

The problem with Parramatta isn't that they are paying players what they're worth, nor is it even a salary cap issue. It's dumb recruitment decisions made in several desperate bids(notably during Kearney and Stuart era) to fill up spots that you lot felt was worth paying any player overs for(i.e. Sandow, Norman, Hoppa, etcetc).
I stated this in another thread, the only player that Parra have invested a good amount of money into and actually have gotten some return from, is Jarryd Hayne.

We had to sign players and we had to pay overs to do it. There's no 'dumb decisions'. The people who signed those players knew what they were worth (less than they were asking) and they knew the consequences of signing nobody (which was the only alternative to paying overs for players).

We needed new players, we needed to spend most of the cap, and the only way to do both was to pay overs. Hell, we even needed to pay overs to retain players (including, I'm sure, Jarryd Hayne).

This is pretty anecdotal lol, most people would assume SBW and Cam would be pretty highly ranked in terms of yearly earnings. Or are you just pulling examples out of your arse thinking people will take it at face value?

Smith has already ben paid his overs when his club was cheating the salary cap. And like Darren Lockyer at the end of his career he has certainly accepted less to stay at Melbourne. Probably also been offered a job with the club post-footy.

And everyone knows the Roosters players are on unders, at least as far as the cap is concerned: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/phil-rothfield-sydney-roosters-squeeze-8-million-worth-of-talent-into-6-million-nrl-salary-cap/story-fni3fh9n-1227050745642

Again, read my first comment. You can beat this topic all you want, but it won't change the fact that your deflecting several more pressing issues in the club.

Just because Hayne is better than other overpaid players on our roster doesn't mean he isn't also on overs. In fact I dare say he is on more. If Hopoate is on 20% (hypothetically) more than he's worth then Hayne is probably also on 20% more than he's worth, and 20% of Hayne's value is a lot more than 20% of Hopoate's.

If you disagree with 20% then substitute whatever value you prefer. But do it for both players and the outcome is the same.

 

[hindy111]

Hoppa is on 60% more than he is worth

 

[Twizzle]

Everyone's into cash, merkin. We can help a lot more merkins with it than without it.

Players have signed downgraded contracts to stay at a club before, surprised you didn't know this.

 

[Twizzle]

We had to sign players and we had to pay overs to do it. There's no 'dumb decisions'. The people who signed those players knew what they were worth (less than they were asking) and they knew the consequences of signing nobody (which was the only alternative to paying overs for players).

We needed new players, we needed to spend most of the cap, and the only way to do both was to pay overs. Hell, we even needed to pay overs to retain players (including, I'm sure, Jarryd Hayne).

Smith has already ben paid his overs when his club was cheating the salary cap. And like Darren Lockyer at the end of his career he has certainly accepted less to stay at Melbourne. Probably also been offered a job with the club post-footy.

And everyone knows the Roosters players are on unders, at least as far as the cap is concerned: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/phil-rothfield-sydney-roosters-squeeze-8-million-worth-of-talent-into-6-million-nrl-salary-cap/story-fni3fh9n-1227050745642

Just because Hayne is better than other overpaid players on our roster doesn't mean he isn't also on overs. In fact I dare say he is on more. If Hopoate is on 20% (hypothetically) more than he's worth then Hayne is probably also on 20% more than he's worth, and 20% of Hayne's value is a lot more than 20% of Hopoate's.

If you disagree with 20% then substitute whatever value you prefer. But do it for both players and the outcome is the same.

like anything, players are worth what someone will pay for them

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Players have signed downgraded contracts to stay at a club before, surprised you didn't know this.

Yeah, at a successful club with all their mates.