** Sorry, just realised I'd posted a bit of an essay... **
Personally I think PJ is copping it a bit harsh in this thread?
There is no longer a June 30 anti-tampering deadline. Therefore there is no right or wrong time for a player to be considering his future. Like it or lump it, offers can now freely come at any time, as can talks with a current club about a new/extended deal.
PJ says he's looking for more game time. It wasn't too long ago where hooker was an 80 min position, with interchanges mainly used for other positions. In fact it may have been Parra that changed that, with the 2001 success we enjoyed using Brad Drew and PJ in that way, now everyone's doing it.
Interesting to note PJ left us after the 2001 season... If I had started out (at my work) thinking my skills would be used in a certain way, and then they were used very differently for a long time (and told it would possibly be like that forever) but I really preferred using my skills the other way, then I would keep talking to my boss about it. If nothing else was possible, then I'd probably look to move somewhere where I might be able to use my skills in the way I'd prefer, or the way I'd originally expected. I'd hope my boss would understand, and support my reasons for checking what else might be around.
It seems like PJ has done the right thing here - discussed his concerns with his club and then been given permission by his club to test the market, with his club willing to let him go a year early if he finds something he's happier with. PJ himself says he's more than 50% likely to stay next year anyway, he's just putting it out there with the club's apparent blessing.
Is he being realistic expecting 80 mins anywhere? Time will tell, just like the game has changed to predominently dual hookers it might change again in a different way. The dual option did us OK the other night, but it has not been a consistent winner for us. And for example this year Huddersfield are playing five what you would call playmakers in their top 17 - sometimes all on the field at once (1-6-7-9-13). It took a while to settle in and now is very effective (10 wins in a row against all the best teams). Even if one of these playmakers has a spell during the game it would only be for a maximum of 10-15 mins, and 70 is a lot closer to 80mins than 55.
My first reaction was just that I think it is bad for Parra that PJ might leave, or leave a year early. Simply because Riddell seems physically incapable of playing more than 55mins and he'll need a dummy half foil. Hagan has committed to Riddell with a contract extension, and I think PJs form has shown this year has demonstrated he is the more valuable player, as shown by earning the starting jersey back. But I haven't really seen the younger options coming through play, so maybe the future's well in hand without PJ anyway.
Elite sports are now a business, and squad building a tricky balance between good decisions, lost opportunities and the bottom line (salary cap). So I'm surprised people are jumping on PJ here, with accusations of players "using the club" just because the terms of their original expectations of opportunities under their contract are not being met?
Once the game turned truly "professional" where players could be full-time and on vastly inflated wages compared to before, this is (unfortunately) the natural consequence, hardly and loyalty (from clubs or players) other than in the contract they currently are servicing.
Yes, fans obviously stick by their team, that's what makes us different from players (employees)! How many of our current squad were ever fans of Parra as kids? How many kids that were fans of Parra have never played for us and happily take the coin from whatever club gives them a break-through? Sterlo was a Manly fan before he played for (was brought down from the bush to play for) us, but he played league in the days before the new professionalism and was one of many that became a one-club man...
Because ultimately these days league is players' (and coaches' etc) employment and careers, and so is subject to change at any time, and our role is to support that while ever it lasts. PJ served us well in his first spell at Parra, he has served us well in his second spell and the club took a risk around his serious injury. He's proved himself, but we seem to not be able to give him the increased game time he probably expected or hoped for once he'd proved himself. So he is still giving 100% for us and is shopping around with our club's blessing. As has been said, good on him either way.
