O'Meley and O'Donnell

[Willow]

This has been doing the rumour mill over the last week. Its now hit the newstands....

Dragons eye O'Meley and O'Donnell
Adrian Proszenko
February 25, 2007

ST GEORGE Illawarra have earmarked Mark O'Meley as a potential
replacement for Jason Ryles should the Dragons prop not agree to a
contract extension with the club.

Ryles, off contract at the end of the season, was named as co-
captain of the Dragons along with Mark Gasnier and Ben Hornby during
the week.

While Dragons CEO Peter Doust is hopeful of retaining Ryles, he
admitted the length of the deal could be a stumbling block in
negotiations.

"Jason is 28 years of age and we need to get through those issues
about his career that always have a big impact on his contract,"
Doust said.

"One wouldn't challenge or doubt his commitment wouldn't be with the
Dragons if it suits his career plans.

"I think it's about how long [his contract is rather than how much
it's worth] that will be the most important figure.

"To be honest about it, he probably wants a longer-term one and we
want a shorter-term one … there might be an argument between three
or two [years]."

Doust said Bulldogs forward O'Meley and Cowboys back-rower Luke
O'Donnell were within their sights, but their ability to chase the
Test stars could depend on re-signing Ryles and Hornby.

"We all know that Luke O'Donnell and Mark O'Meley are on the market,
so we need to know early what our existing roster is doing," he said.

Asked whether his preference was to remain a Dragon, Wollongong
junior Ryles said: "My preference is to do what's best for me."

The Dragons had previously considered offering suspended Wallaby
Wendell Sailor a lifeline but Doust said he would not join the club.

Sailor tested positive to a metabolite of cocaine in 2006 and is
banned from all sport until April 2008.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/league/dragons-eye-omeley-and-odonnell/2007/02/24/1171734076815.html

Looks like manager/club argy bargy.

 

[Willow]

On an aside, and using hindsight as a science, I do recall that we let Bailey go because Ryles was seen as the longer term preference... or something along those lines. Bailey is quoted as saying he wanted to sign for another three years with Saints, but they were slow in responding, so he signed with the GC who offered the security of four years.

Now if the latest Ryles story is true, and Ryles is indeed in some "do what's best for me" mode, then it makes the release of Bailey all the more absurd.

 

[Godz Illa]

Sounds like negotiation pillow talk to me. Ryles is trying to make the club jealous, the club is trying to make Ryles jealous. I think the two parties will reconcile in the end and will live happily ever after.

 

[Willow]

I'm sure that's all it is too Godz. Nothing against Ryles. Although I'm still smarting over the club losing a loyal bloke in Bailey. I hope I'm proven wrong.

 

[Slippery Morris]

Loyal Bloke like Bailey? He had 2 out of 5 seasons out for Pectoral muscle problems then signs for Gold Coast for bigger dollars. I loved Bailey as well but very disapointed in him leaving the club. Sitting out and getting paid good dollars for those 2 injuries surely he can forgive Dragons for delaying abit in the negotiations. If he made 10 years service which he would of with his next contract he would of signed, he could of got an extra 50k which would not be included in the cap as part of his contract.

He was a fantastic player and most times better than Ryles but in the end he left for dollars and Ryles stayed when he could of done the same.

Ryles will have a great year this year, especially now that he is co-captain.

 

[bornadragon]

Can we just focus on what we've got, not who we're not going to get or who's yesterdays dragons. Those boy aren't going to win us any comp.

 

[Willow]

Loyal Bloke like Bailey? He had 2 out of 5 seasons out for Pectoral muscle problems then signs for Gold Coast for bigger dollars.

No he didnt. He signed with the GC because they offered him a four year deal.
The Dragons offered him nothing and virtually showed him the door.

Bailey's quotes in the 2005-2006 Red V Magazine (as edited by the Dragons) support this. No mention that he did it for the money. The main reason were family and the security of a firm contract.

"I was fortunate enough to play football for the Dragons and also secure mine and my family's future," Bailey told the Red V magazine.
"Originally my objective was to stay at the Dragons but when we started the year so bad contract talks dragged on a bit and I started to think its hard to get a three-year deal now, how hard will it be when that time runs out?" Bailey said.
"When the option came to get four years at the Gold Coast from 2007 it was one I found hard to pass up. It's a new challenge and it secures my family."

http://www.showroom.com.au/dragons/dragonshistory/history_stgeorge8b.htm#2005

I loved Bailey as well but very disapointed in him leaving the club.

Sorry again but your facts are wrong. He wanted to stay.

Sitting out and getting paid good dollars for those 2 injuries surely he can forgive Dragons for delaying abit in the negotiations.

The delays dragged on onto the new year and well into the season. Let's face it, if the club wanted Bailey, they would have made sure of it. He wanted to stay with Saints, they invited him to look elsewhere.

As for injuries, I fail to see the relevance. Bailey dropped out of international representative duties so he could be fit enough to play 23 NRL matches in 2005 and 19 NRL matches in 2006.
From 2000-2006 he played 119 NRL games for Saints. Good service given and it sounds like his priorities were with the club.

If he made 10 years service which he would of with his next contract he would of signed, he could of got an extra 50k which would not be included in the cap as part of his contract.

Again, I don't believe it was primarily about money. Of course NRL players need to be paid according to their market price and this is part of the negotiation, but the main thing for Bailey was the security of the length of contract. As shown with the crux of the GC offer being four years.

He was a fantastic player and most times better than Ryles but in the end he left for dollars and Ryles stayed when he could of done the same.

Well you want to repeat that several times so I guess I'll have to answer several times. lol
Read above. It was about the length of contract... the $ figure was secondary.

Ryles will have a great year this year, especially now that he is co-captain.

I certainly hope so. This is not a bagging out on Ryles thing... I think he is a vastly underrated player. My angst is towards a club which allows a player of Bailey's calibre, integrity and positive attitude walk out the door. I'll support the club in their correct decisions. But equally, I'll air my view when I think they have erred.. and I think they stuffed up in regards to Bailey.

 

[Wicks]

Is Bailey worth a four year contract He has a hearing problem knee problem Two years has limited risk three or four years is almost a joke We always have a new prop

Gold Coast has nothing to lose They only have a few quality players and will build up their team over time We are at the salary cap with good players coming into the team every year

He played out of his skin in his contract year Up and down last year and a poor game in the Melbourne final

If he wanted the same money in his third and fourth year then Bailey is the one that offered the club nothing

 

[Willow]

He was only seeking a three year deal at Saints. And I disagree that he had an ordinary 2006.

Time will tell. If he sits out two out of his four seasons on the Gold Coast, then we can safely say we dodged a bullet. But that's bringing luck into it - and like the science of hindsight, I don' think we can tell the future.

Given that the club was happy to persist with injury-prone players in the past, I question whether or not it was a consideration with Bailey.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

I was gutted when Bailey left, he was a leader by example. I recall the Storm game at Kogarah last year, our forwards were all over the shop, running sideways, pushed backwards, and we had next to no momentum. When Bailey came on he drove us forward and the other guys finally got the idea. Even though we only lost by 10 I don't think we were ever really in it, and it would have been a lot worse without his effort. That is what we will miss the most.

But we are where we are. I believe we are desperately in need of a robust prop, a real hard-man now that Bails is gone. O'meley is ideal and on the market. I for one would love to see him with us next year.

O'donnell is a great talent, but I think we have an over-abundance of good backrowers at the moment.

 

[Wicks]

If you are going according to the quote Bailey says I started to think its hard to get a three year deal now, how hard will it be when that time runs out, so the fourth years comes into what has been said

Not ordinary Up and down and down in the biggest game Merits of Bailey are secondary He can be prop of the year and it wouldnt matter to the decision made Football business is different to supporting a player or his play Time wont tell

You would never see the financials the decision was based upon but give me a better hooker and a stronger group of players from top to bottom over a position we have covered no matter who we lost

Chronic injuries are different to broken bones

Bottom line is that club has now got room under the cap to talk to other forwards, and arguably the best props in the country is sunning himself on the Gold Coast.

Thats a newspaper talking

 

[Willow]

If you are going according to the quote Bailey says I started to think its hard to get a three year deal now, how hard will it be when that time runs out, so the fourth years comes into what has been said

The full interview said he was happy with three years. Its not out of the question for Bailey to think he could get three years.

I considered Bailey to be one of those players we would want at the club. In the same class as Gasnier as players on the 'must keep' list.

Not ordinary Up and down and down in the biggest game Merits of Bailey are secondary He can be prop of the year and it wouldnt matter to the decision made Football business is different to supporting a player or his play Time wont tell

Its a business...of course. Unless we're disgreeing just for the sake of it, in which case I'll say time aways tells.

You would never see the financials the decision was based upon but give me a better hooker and a stronger group of players from top to bottom over a position we have covered no matter who we lost

So essentially they had a choice between Bailey or other props. Sounds like you agree with my assessment that they showed Bailey the door.
Did they make the correct decision? Oh... time will tell.

Chronic injuries are different to broken bones

You mean like Shaun Timmins? Mathew Head?

Thats a newspaper talking

lol. Well excuse me.

Here's a heads up for you... it may come down to opinion. Thanks for thinking that mine is influenced by newspapers. The desire for courteous discussion compels me to be polite when responding to such 'contributions'.

Nevertheless I would suggest that you base your notions on the view that the club can do no wrong, and if indeed Bailey was re-signed, I have no doubt you'd view his form of 2006 in a brighter light.

 

[Slippery Morris]

Willow,

As you can see I am still sulking over the loss of Bailey as I was a huge fan of his.
When he signed for the GC I was depressed for a month. It was the same feeling I had when Tallis left the Dragons for the Broncos.

Why would Saints not offer this guy a 3-4 year contract? Was it to do with freeing up cash to keep Gasnier?

 

[Willow]

Why would Saints not offer this guy a 3-4 year contract?

Excellent question. I wish I had the answer. ;-)

 

[Southernsaint]

Us getting Bailey from the Dogs will mean we're getting a player with a reputation but declining skills...

Another Steve Gearin job...

 

[Wicks]

How can you deny one part of an interview for another The suggestion about what happens is there If he signs for two years in 2006 and 2007 and a lesser amount in 2008 what kind of contract is waiting and what is his value to other teams Its there in what Bailey has said He took less in 2006 and now has a big contract for four years

It is not out of the question as long as he is willing to concede that those third and fourth years involve more risk and need to be considered in a different light

Gasnier is a must keep as long as he decided to fall into the boundaries of what the club believe he is worth They have more idea than Bailey about their players in 2008 and so on

Bailey has said that he was concerned about what kind of money he would take out of the salary cap All our players have been which is a credit to them He can be confused that there isnt a third year at his price but he really doesnt know the structure of payments He is in no better position than us to know when we have to pay players and how much we have to pay them

Present us with the clubs figures and projected figures and then you can say whether time will tell

I didnt single out the props because we cant know for sure When you buy four hookers that is clear cut but the result of Bailey moving on is strength across all positions

Timmins was the first player to qualify for the one hundred thousand for long service and continually reduced his contract amount Plenty of give and take between Head and the club over his career There is no guarantee we could afford him if he was injury free Instead now we have two strong halfbacks Hornby hasnt got his big contract yet

Titans presented us with a good deal We pay him a small amount in 2006 They guarantee him the deal he wants long term and keep him away from stronger clubs The move by the club to help the Titans also saved us from being targeted like other clubs On reentering the competition South Sydney purchased more players in the first 12 months alone

Bottom line is that club has now got room under the cap to talk to other forwards

How is this not newspaper talk It is media manipulation by the club

You must not have thought much of the comment since you deleted it without indication of editing

 

[Willow]

How can you deny one part of an interview for another

Is that a question?
In which case you'll need to clarify as I haven't done anything of the sort.

As for the rest, its a difficult read. Try using some punctuation (perhaps full stops would be a good start) and I'll do my best to reply.

You must not have thought much of the comment since you deleted it without indication of editing

Never assume, because when you assume, you make an ass of u and me.
- Felix Unger (1972)

My attempt at fixing a line of text and subsequent connection issues are hardly relevant. But by all means, play the man and not the ball... I find it gratifying.

To debunk your assumption, its obvious that I rate Bailey very highly, how many ways do I say it? And how hard is it for to accept an opinion which is contrary to your own?

 

[Father Ted]

Wicks you either work for the club or are sleeping with someone that does mate >

 

[The Preacher]

I think we both came to that conclusion early in Wicks' posting career, Father !! ;-)

 

[Wicks]

A Felix Unger outcome

There is no more I can add except punctuation :!: Love a player Dont believe they should be treated that way in negotiations ](*,)