What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Rumours and Stuff

Incorrect

Coach
Messages
13,041
See, I still don’t think we would. It’s a terrible business strategy from a planning perspective and I reckon we’d prefer to allocate more cap space to Grant for a guaranteed number of years, rather than going down the PO path. If he declines then we’d move on.

The fact that we’re looking to remove Moses’ PO suggests the same as he is a better and more valuable commodity than Grant.
The second paragraph of your post was easily the most insightful part....
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
92,623
See, I still don’t think we would. It’s a terrible business strategy from a planning perspective and I reckon we’d prefer to allocate more cap space to Grant for a guaranteed number of years, rather than going down the PO path. If he declines then we’d move on.

The fact that we’re looking to remove Moses’ PO suggests the same as he is a better and more valuable commodity than Grant.
We can’t remove his option. He will either activate it, sign a new contract, or leave.
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
92,623
Well Melbourne gave him one, so it can’t be that stupid.
And why would we move on to a lesser player when we could sign the best? All we need to do is give him an option for an extra year (or two). Can you imagine the media and Eels fans finding out that the club had the chance to sign him but didn’t because we flat-out refused to give him a PO?
They will whinge no matter what the club does. The problem isn’t the options, the problem is that we only won seven games last year. Did the contract options cause the lack of wins? More likely is they are both a symptom of the salary cap pressure the club found itself under at the end of 2021.
 

AnonymousLurker

Juniors
Messages
2,007
Gould finds it hard because no one sees out their contracts , he moves players on all the time plus coaches
I've heard Gould talk about how difficult it is managing a salary cap and building a squad, length of contracts and knowing what Juniors will be ready that you don't want to lose.
He also has mentioned how POs add to the complications and make it almost impossible to plan.

Yes I firmly beleive we lost some quality spine players recently due to POs and unable to plan.
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
92,623
I've heard Gould talk about how difficult it is managing a salary cap and building a squad, length of contracts and knowing what Juniors will be ready that you don't want to lose.
He also has mentioned how POs add to the complications and make it almost impossible to plan.

Yes I firmly beleive we lost some quality spine players recently due to POs and unable to plan.
We would’ve been unable to plan anyway because they were off contract. The only option we (the club) lost due to the POs for Moses and Drown was the option of getting rid of them. Do you really think that was a realistic option? Just to keep Talagi and/or Sanders?
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
92,623
So what you’re saying is that if we offer a new contract and he accepts, the PO is removed. I’m not sure how that differs from what I said.
If we don’t offer a new contract, or we offer one and he refuses, the PO will still be ‘removed’, whether he activates it or not. If he activates it, it is gone, and if he doesn’t it will expire.
I understand the workings of this process.
The workings aren’t in dispute. What we disagree on is the implications. The only thing the club gives up with a PO is the option of getting rid of the player if we don’t want to keep him. Yes it’s a risk, and that is understood during negotiations. The player gains something of value while the club takes on some risk. Therefore there must be some commensurate benefit to the club, and corresponding cost to the player. This is a fundamental element of negotiations.
 
Last edited:

Happy MEel

First Grade
Messages
9,887
We would’ve been unable to plan anyway because they were off contract. The only option we (the club) lost due to the POs for Moses and Drown was the option of getting rid of them. Do you really think that was a realistic option? Just to keep Talagi and/or Sanders?
Drown - yes, Moses - No. It also didn’t just have to be to be those two as the only alternatives.
 

Happy MEel

First Grade
Messages
9,887
If we don’t offer a new contract, or we offer one and he refuses, the PO will still be ‘removed’, whether he activates it or not. If he activates it, it is gone, and if he doesn’t it will expire.
So you’re saying offering a new contract now could potentially “remove” the PO.


The fact that we’re looking to remove Moses’ PO suggests the same as he is a better and more valuable commodity than Grant.

I’m glad that’s cleared up.

You’re taking the piss Pou
 

King-Gutho94

Coach
Messages
16,229
The selfish rotted culture in the joint for the past decade was poetic with all these POs.

The culture started from the coach, captain & all the senior players and its festered from there.

The fact the club has basically implied it wont be doing it moving forward is a huge culture shift and a shot across the bow to the playing squad.

Buy in or piss off
 
Top