Rumours and Stuff

[hineyrulz]

Some of them cop a bit too much flak as well (not Sticky, he can get farked).

All I’m saying is that if people are allowed to put shit on someone, then others are allowed to defend them without being accused of trolling.

If you create an argument then you are open to an opposing argument - something which you would think a certain legal expert on here would understand.

As soon as they aren’t at the club they are fair game IMO, Brian Smith was a great coach for the majority of his time here he still cops shit and he copped it deluxe around the time of his exit. That’s how it goes, atm we are all on the Ryles bandwagon. Hope he stays for a long time and takes us to the promised land because if he can’t he will join the list pf the also ran coaches!!


It’s very exciting!!

 

[hineyrulz]

Definitely a lot of energy devoted to PO’s on here.

Especially to defending them, if only we can get some of these Merkins to fix our edge defence.

 

[Legal Eel]

Wouldn't that mean people (posters) have opposing views on some matters?

Is a troll then just the person that argues against the original view put forward?

Seriously, I think a troll is someone who deliberately takes the contrarian view time and time again just for the sake of argument and antagonising people - which he himself has admitted under his guise of "educating dumb bogan Parra fans".

This is what Pou has done constantly - to the point where it diminishes the occasions when he has a justifiable and bona fide contrary view.

 

[hineyrulz]

I’ve been wanting to get a polo for a few years now but they’ve not been all that great looking. This years one would have been great if they decided to have the proper logo instead of that fluorescent green one.

I agree with you I’m hoping the next years batch will be worth buying.

Agree, our merch has looked puss the last few years. I got a polo from 2017 that looks great and somehow I try and squeeze myself into it. It’s not me it’s shrunk i tell ya!!

 

[emjaycee]

What would be the difference between negotiating with a player when he has a player option versus when he is simply off contract?

If a player takes the PO then there is no negotiation however if they let it lapse and then head into negotiations, the only difference (negative) would be if the option expired later into the final contract year, there would be less time to find a replacement (should the player leave, like Talagi).

In Talagi's case however we made him an offer in November 2023 (before the PO lapsed) that effectively negated the PO as it was of a higher value so realistically we had already opened negotiations.

There would also be a negative to a PO if we decided we didn't want to keep the player and they wanted to stay regardless, but that doesn't seem to be the norm. Rumour has it this is what occurred with Matterson who I am told has invoked his PO for 2026 early as he couldn't get another contract elsewhere - no doubt due to concerns about another concussion forcing him to retire. Although if this did happen, we would get paid out by insurance.

 

[Legal Eel]

I’ve been wanting to get a polo for a few years now but they’ve not been all that great looking. This years one would have been great if they decided to have the proper logo instead of that fluorescent green one.

I agree with you I’m hoping the next years batch will be worth buying.

I just don't like the green.

I actually think a navy blue with gold and white trim and logos makes for an awesome polo

 

[Noise]

I know you are being a smart arsehole, but tell me again how they hurt us?

Haven’t we got that tight arse / selfish/ head knock Matterson for another 2 years because he just opted in when we were trying to offload him.

 

[emjaycee]

Seriously, I think a troll is someone who deliberately takes the contrarian view time and time again just for the sake of argument and antagonising people - which he himself has admitted under his guise of "educating dumb bogan Parra fans".

This is what Pou has done constantly - to the point where it diminishes the occasions when he has a justifiable and bona fide contrary view.

I think you read a little bit too much into his motives to be honest.

He seems to me to be the type of poster who won't just agree just for agreement's sake and likes to apply a level of logic to his decisions and therefore his argument(s). His claim about educating dumb bogan Parra fans I think is primarily focused on those fans whose arguments he believes lack any real logic.

For example, he claims BA is an above average NRL coach right? And lots of posters don't agree with him which is fine. But his claim is based on the logic that BA has achieved greater than the average number of wins over his career and therefore by definition is "above average". So fans who dont see that BA is above average are simply in Pou's mind, being illogical.

Of course, being the smartarse he is, he tries to change that by repeating it ad nausem (and by calling people dumb).

 

[emjaycee]

There would also be a negative to a PO if we decided we didn't want to keep the player and they wanted to stay regardless, but that doesn't seem to be the norm. Rumour has it this is what occurred with Matterson who I am told has invoked his PO for 2026 early as he couldn't get another contract elsewhere - no doubt due to concerns about another concussion forcing him to retire. Although if this did happen, we would get paid out by insurance.

Haven’t we got that tight arse / selfish/ head knock Matterson for another 2 years because he just opted in when we were trying to offload him.

FFS

 

[Incorrect]

If a player takes the PO then there is no negotiation however if they let it lapse and then head into negotiations, the only difference (negative) would be if the option expired later into the final contract year, there would be less time to find a replacement (should the player leave, like Talagi).

In Talagi's case however we made him an offer in November 2023 (before the PO lapsed) that effectively negated the PO as it was of a higher value so realistically we had already opened negotiations.

There would also be a negative to a PO if we decided we didn't want to keep the player and they wanted to stay regardless, but that doesn't seem to be the norm. Rumour has it this is what occurred with Matterson who I am told has invoked his PO for 2026 early as he couldn't get another contract elsewhere - no doubt due to concerns about another concussion forcing him to retire. Although if this did happen, we would get paid out by insurance.

This is what I was about to point out in answer to your earlier post "how do PO's hurt us?".

Hypothetically - Let's say come December this year, the Storm and Cameron Munster come to an agreement that he can negotiate with anyone for 2026. Ryles tells MON to do whatever it takes to get him to Parra.... But MON turns around and says we've got Drown's PO to think about and he has got until July 2025 (for arguments sake) to activate it... The club is basically hamstrung from being able to negotiate with a marquee player because Drown has a PO which nobody knows will be activated. Whereas if he was just "off contract" at the end of 2025, we'd know where we stand and could cease any contract extension talks with Drown and go hard for Munster.

Then in March 2025, Munster announces he has signed with the Broncos for 2026 because Parra couldn't make a concrete offer.... In July 2025, Drown decides he won't be taking up his PO and has instead agreed to terms for 2026 -2030 with the Warriors. Instead, Parra end up signing Toby Sexton and Jackson Hastings with the space freed up in the cap in the hope that one of them can finally nail down a halves spot

That scenario might be the "only difference" as you term it if the PO expires later in the year... But it's a pretty f**king big difference with potential to completely scupper your recruitment plans and goals.

In saying all of that - there seems to be some black magic involved behind the scenes with PO's and no doubt I've missed something in the hypothetical above and I'm way off...

 

[emjaycee]

This is what I was about to point out in answer to your earlier post "how do PO's hurt us?".

Hypothetically - Let's say come December this year, the Storm and Cameron Munster come to an agreement that he can negotiate with anyone for 2026. Ryles tells MON to do whatever it takes to get him to Parra.... But MON turns around and says we've got Drown's PO to think about and he has got until July 2025 (for arguments sake) to activate it... The club is basically hamstrung from being able to negotiate with a marquee player because Drown has a PO which nobody knows will be activated. Whereas if he was just "off contract" at the end of 2025, we'd know where we stand and could cease any contract extension talks with Drown and go hard for Munster.

Then in March 2025, Munster announces he has signed with the Broncos for 2026 because Parra couldn't make a concrete offer.... In July 2025, Drown decides he won't be taking up his PO and has instead agreed to terms for 2026 -2030 with the Warriors. Instead, Parra end up signing Toby Sexton and Jackson Hastings with the space freed up in the cap in the hope that one of them can finally nail down a halves spot

That scenario might be the "only difference" as you term it if the PO expires later in the year... But it's a pretty f**king big difference with potential to completely scupper your recruitment plans and goals.

Agree 100% which is why I listed it as a negative.

 

[84 Baby]

Whose energy though?
Not mine.

And not as much as protracted negotiations with player managers who are playing us off against every other club from Nov 1st onwards would take.

What would be the difference between negotiating with a player when he has a player option versus when he is simply off contract?

Maybe Pou can tell us the stats but in a given year you’ll have X amount of squad spots off contract you’ll have to negotiate with. If you have a heap of options coming due as well, it’s multiplying your workload. As I said energy being used. And yes fans energy too as much as @emjaycee thinks it doesn’t, although the impact wouldn’t be as impactful.

On top of that:
There’s way more control in a negotiation of a new contract.
Options have deadlines which means as much as people protest they don’t, in the lead up to that deadline they’ll likely negatively impact all those involved with it (and potentially the team at large).
If the player takes up his option, it likely means he’s on overs.
Even if the player takes up option, it saves a year or two and then it moves to new contract negotiations anyway (or further option deadline).

They’re not the bane of our salary cap but there needs to be balance.

 

[Legal Eel]

I think you read a little bit too much into his motives to be honest.

He seems to me to be the type of poster who won't just agree just for agreement's sake and likes to apply a level of logic to his decisions and therefore his argument(s). His claim about educating dumb bogan Parra fans I think is primarily focused on those fans whose arguments he believes lack any real logic.

For example, he claims BA is an above average NRL coach right? And lots of posters don't agree with him which is fine. But his claim is based on the logic that BA has achieved greater than the average number of wins over his career and therefore by definition is "above average". So fans who dont see that BA is above average are simply in Pou's mind, being illogical.

Of course, being the smartarse he is, he tries to change that by repeating it ad nausem (and by calling people dumb).

Thats a pretty fair and reasonable explanation!

 

[Zoso]

Especially to defending them, if only we can get some of these Merkins to fix our edge defence.

Plenty of merkins chasing the collision on both sides of the ball.

 

[Joshuatheeel]

FFS

But that isn't isolated to a PO....if Matterson had simply taken a 4 year deal without PO, the issue still remains....

The problem isnt the PO, but the club changed its opinion on Matterson.....

Anyhow, considering PO are generally in the club's favour, value wise....we would have him cheaper in year 4, over if it was a 4 year contract....

So what is the difference with a 4 year deal or 3 year deal plus PO...in the Matterson situation? He is still here...

 

[84 Baby]

If a player takes the PO then there is no negotiation however if they let it lapse and then head into negotiations, the only difference (negative) would be if the option expired later into the final contract year, there would be less time to find a replacement (should the player leave, like Talagi).

In Talagi's case however we made him an offer in November 2023 (before the PO lapsed) that effectively negated the PO as it was of a higher value so realistically we had already opened negotiations.

There would also be a negative to a PO if we decided we didn't want to keep the player and they wanted to stay regardless, but that doesn't seem to be the norm. Rumour has it this is what occurred with Matterson who I am told has invoked his PO for 2026 early as he couldn't get another contract elsewhere - no doubt due to concerns about another concussion forcing him to retire. Although if this did happen, we would get paid out by insurance.

This is what I was about to point out in answer to your earlier post "how do PO's hurt us?".

Hypothetically - Let's say come December this year, the Storm and Cameron Munster come to an agreement that he can negotiate with anyone for 2026. Ryles tells MON to do whatever it takes to get him to Parra.... But MON turns around and says we've got Drown's PO to think about and he has got until July 2025 (for arguments sake) to activate it... The club is basically hamstrung from being able to negotiate with a marquee player because Drown has a PO which nobody knows will be activated. Whereas if he was just "off contract" at the end of 2025, we'd know where we stand and could cease any contract extension talks with Drown and go hard for Munster.

Then in March 2025, Munster announces he has signed with the Broncos for 2026 because Parra couldn't make a concrete offer.... In July 2025, Drown decides he won't be taking up his PO and has instead agreed to terms for 2026 -2030 with the Warriors. Instead, Parra end up signing Toby Sexton and Jackson Hastings with the space freed up in the cap in the hope that one of them can finally nail down a halves spot

That scenario might be the "only difference" as you term it if the PO expires later in the year... But it's a pretty f**king big difference with potential to completely scupper your recruitment plans and goals.

In saying all of that - there seems to be some black magic involved behind the scenes with PO's and no doubt I've missed something in the hypothetical above and I'm way off...

I think you’re both conflating the problem. On here it became a highlight that almost everyone in our squad seemed to have an option of some sort. If we’re in a position where waiting on one player to decide costs us a potential replacement, that’s simply negotiation and talent identification. It happens.
It’s the volume and in some case the scenarios it’s occurred in that’s the problem.
They were a gamble played to lower cost during 19-22. The gamble didn’t pay off and now we’re paying the bookie for it. And so far we seem bereft of correcting it.

 

[84 Baby]

But that isn't isolated to a PO....if Matterson had simply taken a 4 year deal without PO, the issue still remains....

The problem isnt the PO, but the club changed its opinion on Matterson.....

Anyhow, considering PO are generally in the club's favour, value wise....we would have him cheaper in year 4, over if it was a 4 year contract....

So what is the difference with a 4 year deal or 3 year deal plus PO...in the Matterson situation? He is still here...

Talent identification is the problem here

 

[Incorrect]

Agree 100% which is why I listed it as a negative.

Yep.

I guess it could also be conceded then that having too many of these PO's then only exacerbates the potential hurt they can cause if key players decide not to activate them... or if the wrong ones decide they DO want to activate them a la Matto....

 

[hindy111]

Yes, as you know I have been saying the same thing.

As much as Westfields would like you to sign a 10 year lease, common sense tells you to sign a 3+3+3. That's how you do business. That's how you protect your family. I just don't know why people don't understand that.

You'd have to be a dam fool to sign a 10yr lease while Albo is sinking the country and economy.

 

[Joshuatheeel]

I think you’re both conflating the problem. On here it became a highlight that almost everyone in our squad seemed to have an option of some sort. If we’re in a position where waiting on one player to decide costs us a potential replacement, that’s simply negotiation and talent identification. It happens.
It’s the volume and in some case the scenarios it’s occurred in that’s the problem.
They were a gamble played to lower cost during 19-22. The gamble didn’t pay off and now we’re paying the bookie for it. And so far we seem bereft of correcting it.

We only have 3 PO (Matterson, Brown and Will) and 2 MO (Lane / Sivo) next year.

I get the argument against them, but I don't see them being a huge issue next year in roster management.

Sivo/Lane, it's up to us to let them go or not. Matterson is obviously going to stay.

Will/Drown who knows.

So really it's only Drown to decide, as there is a good chance we will probably try to negotiate a new deal with Will, thus get an early indication of his plans.