Mark O'Neill

[King-Gutho94]

While on the topic of Moses, Hooper pointed out that the 29-year-old could actually become a free agent again as early as November, 2025 due to clauses in his contract.


“This is another ridiculous deal that Eels management have ticked off on,” he said.

“Last year they trumpeted the fact that Mitchell agreed to a five-year extension with the club. It’s not a five-year extension, it’s a three-year extension (but) in 2027 and 2028 he has player options in his favour... if things do turn pear-shaped at Parramatta, if he wants to he can get out.”

Moses contract clause leaves Eels on the hook as spotlight turns on forgotten man in NRL mess

Eels on hook over Moses clause as spotlight turns on forgotten man in NRL mess

www.foxsports.com.au

Yep Player options are great business.

Lets have the same the circus we did last year for half the season with our halfback.

Will he or wont he take up his player option.

f**k off back to Wests Tigers Buckets you have destroyed this club enough with the bald fraud that is now sitting at Leeds.

 

[Chipmunk]

"The Frank Ponnisi of the West". Every other club in the NRL must be having a good ol' laff at that one...

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Why would any club agree to a player option?!? You’d have to ask one of the ten clubs who have them on their books. The obvious answer is that it’s a way to compensate a player without increasing his value under the cap. As for whether they are a problem, it’s only the case if the option is for more than the player is worth.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Lets have the same the circus we did last year for half the season with our halfback.

Will he or wont he take up his player option.

You obviously assume he won’t take up the option. It is there to project the player if he gets injured during his off contract year. It’s not get out clause, it is assumed he will chase the best deal when he can, no different to any other off contract player. But if he can’t get anything better he takes the clause, which he is entitled to from taking less cash up front (and using less cap space) on his previous negotiation.

 

[Pazza]

Why would any club agree to a player option?!? You’d have to ask one of the ten clubs who have them on their books. The obvious answer is that it’s a way to compensate a player without increasing his value under the cap. As for whether they are a problem, it’s only the case if the option is for more than the player is worth.

 

[Pazza]

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Better clubs than his have them. They are a bargaining chip, with pros and cons. Just like club options. They aren’t free.

 

[the phantom menace]

Why would any club agree to a player option?!? You’d have to ask one of the ten clubs who have them on their books. The obvious answer is that it’s a way to compensate a player without increasing his value under the cap. As for whether they are a problem, it’s only the case if the option is for more than the player is worth.