moltz staying

[N.C.]

*cries*

Thanks St Benny. You've helped me to see the light. I'm off to see how much a Giants membership will set me back because I just can't stand the thought of being ridiculed by real league fans for another day longer...

Just as an aside, when should we start to call you St Price?

 

[Firey_Dragon]

Of course you can compare it. If you're going to call 'flood-gates', then you can't allow yourself to get too specific...

Titans also got compensation as well as two melbourne juniors if memory serves me correctly. They didn't "just let him go" like you're suggesting the dragons do. The situation is different in that Turner said he just didn't want to go, the clubs weren't arguing semantics of contracts. Given this the situation is significantly different and the liability has shifted from the player to the club.

The timing of this is the critical issue, it's crippled our ability to replace him in the roster with someone of the same level of ability. This could be a flood-gate opening for the very reason that about 90% of contract releases are handled in this manner, it just shows that a club can exploit it for their own benefit at any time they want. With that said, i'm guessing most CEO's have a little more integrity than Humphreys on a matter like this

 

[N.C.]

I've never suggested they "just let him go". I might have suggested they "just let it go"...

If I'm misquoting myself here, then please let the record show I mean they should get over it, and start getting on with it.

In reply to a suggestion that an example needs to be made of Moltzen and the Tigers, I'm suggesting they should try and work something out. Just like the Storm and Titans did.

I must say, you and your mates' frequent attempts to paint Humphries as the sole antagonist in this situation just makes it impossible to take you seriously...

 

[Firey_Dragon]

I've never suggested they "just let him go". I might have suggested they "just let it go"...

If I'm misquoting myself here, then please let the record show I mean they should get over it, and start getting on with it.

Refer below...

Probably he wanted something on the record about where he stands in all this. Why shouldn't Saints just let him go? Do you really think he's a fullback?

In reply to your suggestion that an example needs to be made of Moltzen and the Tigers, I'm suggesting they should try and work something out. Just like the Storm and Titans did.

I must say, you and your mates' frequent attempts to paint Humphries as the sole antagonist in this situation just makes it impossible to take you seriously...

Who are the other antagonists in this? Your clubman in Sheens, Benji, Moltzen and even Humphreys have come out with numerous quotes over the last 3 months suggesting Moltzen was moving on, and he had 3 months to say we're not giving Moltzen a release. Instead he waited till your halfback belted his missus and virtually every trade window has shut, then says nope it's not happening.

So where exactly does the blame lie, if its not with Humphreys?

 

[silverfox]

why did humpty say on Monday last week they would probably release moltzen, and then another backflip 4 days later?

 

[Das Hassler]

Doust's timing of Moltzen's "signing" was INTENTIONALY timed to disrupt the tigers preparation for an important game and their run into the finals...Humphries stated that in no uncertain terms that he knew it and the Tigers didn't appreciate it...why then would The Tigers possibly need to give a sh-t about what might upset the dragons?...F--K the prescious dragons

 

[N.C.]

why did humpty say on Monday last week they would probably release moltzen, and then another backflip 4 days later?

If you read the papers, it's because he got over-ruled by the board. Maybe you should read the papers?

 

[N.C.]

Refer below...

Fair enough. In hindsight I should have said "why would they want to keep him?" Because that's what I meant. This is not inconsistent with the notion of reaching some kind of settlement. I can't imagine why they would refer the matter to the NRL if they were prepared to do this... But I'm happy to admit I have no more information on this situation than you do, so I can only guess as to their motivation for that.

Who are the other antagonists in this? Your clubman in Sheens, Benji, Moltzen and even Humphreys have come out with numerous quotes over the last 3 months suggesting Moltzen was moving on, and he had 3 months to say we're not giving Moltzen a release. Instead he waited till your halfback belted his missus and virtually every trade window has shut, then says nope it's not happening.

So where exactly does the blame lie, if its not with Humphreys?

As far as I can see it lies with Moltzen and Tauber for signing a contract that they weren't entitled to; and with the Dragons for not putting a "subject to release" clause in the thing from the start...

The first ever article I read about this (which was actually a couple of days after I first saw rumours about it on this forum) said that Moltzen had told the Tigers he'd like to stay before the Lui/Backo incident occurred. Again, only going the same info as you lot have got, and again I'm guessing.

But if I wanted to be a tool about it I could say: "Seems like Doust is trying to use the Lui situation to his advantage to cover up his ineptitude..." No doubt you Dragons fans will see it differently, though, and I guess that's why we're all in this pickle.

 

[Firey_Dragon]

Doust's timing of Moltzen's "signing" was INTENTIONALY timed to disrupt the tigers preparation for an important game and their run into the finals...Humphries stated that in no uncertain terms that he knew it and the Tigers didn't appreciate it...why then would The Tigers possibly need to give a sh-t about what might upset the dragons?...F--K the prescious dragons

I love a rant about how a club announced a new signing is a reason for a loss against a team on the lower half of the ladder 8 rounds before the post-season and an act of "deliberate" sabotage for finals chances... Then you call the Dragons precious. The irony is delicious.

 

[Firey_Dragon]

As far as I can see it lies with Moltzen and Tauber for signing a contract that they weren't entitled to; and with the Dragons for not putting a "subject to release" clause in the thing from the start...

The first ever article I read about this (which was actually a couple of days after I first saw rumours about it on this forum) said that Moltzen had told the Tigers he'd like to stay before the Lui/Backo incident occurred. Again, only going the same info as you lot have got, and again I'm guessing.

But if I wanted to be a tool about it I could say: "Seems like Doust is trying to use the Lui situation to his advantage to cover up his ineptitude..." No doubt you Dragons fans will see it differently, though, and I guess that's why we're all in this pickle.

All of this doesn't change the fact that if Moltzen was never going to get a release (which he said to the dragons that he already had a verbal), Humphreys could have denied it months ago, instead he waited till about 3 weeks before pre-season kicks off again.

As for Doust's ineptitude, these sorts of verbals are commonplace. We could technically withhold Boyd from joining the Knights right now. What will be interesting is what happens in years 2 and 3, depending on how the contract is drawn up Moltzen may or may not be forced to move to the Dragons for those years, which should he stay at the tigers I doubt would bode well for his tenure at our club.

 

[to_ddeath]

''Then things have turned full circle. I bawled my eyes out after my last game because I thought that was my last game for the Tigers. I thought that was it for me, that group of people"

WAA WAA WAAAAAAAA. You f*ckers can have him, no question about it
:lol:

 

[N.C.]

All of this doesn't change the fact that if Moltzen was never going to get a release (which he said to the dragons that he already had a verbal), Humphreys could have denied it months ago, instead he waited till about 3 weeks before pre-season kicks off again.

As for Doust's ineptitude, these sorts of verbals are commonplace. We could technically withhold Boyd from joining the Knights right now. What will be interesting is what happens in years 2 and 3, depending on how the contract is drawn up Moltzen may or may not be forced to move to the Dragons for those years, which should he stay at the tigers I doubt would bode well for his tenure at our club.

You seem to be hand-picking 'facts' to suit your argument... It's getting kind of painful to watch.

Are you sure Boyd doesn't have a special clause in his contract that says he can follow his master around wherever he goes? If you can 'technically' keep him, then why don't you? Problem solved for everyone.

As for years 2 and 3 - either there's an enforceable contract here, or there isn't. If he's not a Dragon in 2012, then he wont be one in 2013 or 2014 unless you offer him a new contract. If he's at the Tigers for 2012 then he's a free agent from 2013 onwards...

Guess you'll just have to keep guessing on this one like the rest of us.

 

[innsaneink]

Yeah....''technically''....even though he's a pretty boy sook much like Moltzen, I'd much prefer Dahhhrius at fulback than Moltzen....so why dont you just withhold Boyd from joining the Knights?
What garbage!
Another LU Perry mason

 

[Firey_Dragon]

You seem to be hand-picking 'facts' to suit your argument... It's getting kind of painful to watch.

Are you sure Boyd doesn't have a special clause in his contract that says he can follow his master around wherever he goes?

Doust has been quoted as saying that Boyd is in exactly the same stage of contract transfer as Moltzen is.

If you can 'technically' keep him, then why don't you? Problem solved for everyone.

Because our CEO allegedly has more integrity.

 

[37916319]

Because our CEO allegedly has more integrity.

Intergrity my ass, if Boyd comes back and says he wants to stay a Dragon Doust would do eveything possible to keep him, he wouldnt be a good CEO if he didnt.

 

[innsaneink]

allegedly

Yes announcing a signing on the day the departing player in question is playing an important game where his team is desperate to get back on track after several losses reeks of integrity - allegedly

 

[N.C.]

Doust has been quoted as saying that Boyd is in exactly the same stage of contract transfer as Moltzen is. Because our CEO allegedly has more integrity.

Yet Humphreys was quoted the day Moltzen's signature was announced as saying that Moltzen had not been granted a release. The only person who has said he had one was his manager... and guess who pays all those damages if Moltzen gets sued over this??? That's right, his manager. Starting to see why we can't take his word for it just yet?

 

[vookie]

Of course he can't see it he is a f**ken pea heart dragons supporter

 

[Dragons01]

Yet Humphreys was quoted the day Moltzen's signature was announced as saying that Moltzen had not been granted a release. The only person who has said he had one was his manager... and guess who pays all those damages if Moltzen gets sued over this??? That's right, his manager. Starting to see why we can't take his word for it just yet?

Tauber has been very quiet during this whole mess and he has quite a few of the answers. Either he was told moltzen was released and he is in the clear or he lied about it.

 

[Gus22]

Business 101: Get it in writing.
Amateur hour at the Dragons on this one, I'm afraid.