Rumours (signings, sackings & other NRL stuff)

[Tiger05]

Sullivan has dug his heels in and said he's not going anywhere.
I don't think he likes the idea of going to England.

Let's wait and see what happens but that signing really isn't working for us. It was a Benji signing as well. I hope he learns.

 

[TheDefinitionOfMadness]

Sullivan has dug his heels in and said he's not going anywhere.
I don't think he likes the idea of going to England.

In his defence, he doesn't have to. We decided to sign him to a 4 year contract. Just because it hasn't worked out, doesn't mean he has to bugger off to free up cap space and a roster spot for us. He's completely entitled to see out his contract.

We complain, quite rightly, when contracted players and coaches (or their manager more like it) look to get out of existing contracts to go elsewhere. It works both ways though. When we sign someone who hasn't worked out, we must honour the contract, or as team coaches, look for ways to improve the player so things turn around. I suppose we can be honest and tell them it's not working out and they have the option to look around for a better deal. At the end of the day though, we have no right to pressure them into pissing off. If they're happy playing reserve grade and collecting their money they've done nothing wrong. As a club, we can't cry and complain about this.

The lesson we should learn is not to offer long term contracts to average / borderline 1st graders. I think most us said at the time he should have only been signed for 2 years. Or 1 year. Sure, it's going to mean a lot of work for the recruitment and retention people, but where we're at, we need to be re-evaluating everyone every year, and this leaves us in a position to be flexible with our top 30, as other player come onto the market.

 

[Tigerm]

History indicates, the more they deny something, the more it's likely to happen?

He won't lose money, whatever happens to him.

 

[Nutz]

In his defence, he doesn't have to. We decided to sign him to a 4 year contract. Just because it hasn't worked out, doesn't mean he has to bugger off to free up cap space and a roster spot for us. He's completely entitled to see out his contract.

We complain, quite rightly, when contracted players and coaches (or their manager no like it) look to get out of existing contracts to go elsewhere. It works both ways though. When we sign someone who hasn't worked out, we must honour the contract, or as team coaches, look for ways to improve the player so things turn around. I suppose we can be honest and tell them it's not working out and they have the option to look around for a better deal. At the end of the day though, we have no right to pressure them into pissing off. If they're happy playing reserve grade and collecting their money they've done nothing wrong. As a club, we can't cry and complain about this.

The lesson we should learn is not to offer long term contracts to average / borderline 1st graders. I think most us said at the time he should have only been signed for 2 years. Or 1 year. Sure, it's going to mean a lot of work for the recruitment and retention people, but were we're at, we need to be re-evaluating everyone every year, and this leaves us in a position to be flexible with our top 30, as other player come onto the market.

Exactly, I agree. It's on Benji's head so he has to wear it and find a way around it.
My dad used to say "if you work really hard at something, you have a better chance of succeeding"
I think it applies here. If a solution isn't imminent the next best thing is to knuckle down and work hard with what we've got and if something crops up we will be in a better position to deal with it.
Benji needs to coach the club to have a certain DNA and lower grades all the way down to Matt's need to buy in. This way, whenever a player transitions to the next level he knows the system.
Bud needs to know what and when to do things if he finds himself in first grade. If Bud is playing good footy and contributing then his value to the club goes up and also becomes a target for other clubs.
Atm he's merely treading water.
There's no better example of this than the Storm and Penrith. They virtually bring in unknowns who fit straight into their system.

 

[Tiger05]

History indicates, the more they deny something, the more it's likely to happen?

He won't lose money, whatever happens to him.

This is my take as well. He'll get paid. It's like Latrell and Moses and Tedesco and Stef all signing for less at other clubs. They aren't getting a cent less.

I don't blame Sullivan for the crappy contract. The recruiting team stuffed up. I also think he could be a decent first grader but we have heaps of better options in the halves. I'm surprised another club hasn't given him a shot even though we'd be screwed over in relation to paying a chunk of his salary.

 

[Tiger Ted]

We ended up with Sullivan the lemon as a result of Tartak’s horse trading with us in our attempt to recruit Samuela & Latu.Tartak manages the Fainu’s & the lemon.

 

[Tigerm]

We ended up with Sullivan the lemon as a result of Tartak’s horse trading with us in our attempt to recruit Samuela & Latu.Tartak manages the Fainu’s & the lemon.

TBF, we had lost Brooks and had no other 7 options at the time, then we got Sezer and the kids shone , but we were stuck with a contract.
I don’t see him staying, I mentioned earlier that where ever he goes, we will have to top his contract up to current value, someone will need a backup 7 for next season.

 

[Perth Tiger]

TBF, we had lost Brooks and had no other 7 options at the time, then we got Sezer and the kids shone , but we were stuck with a contract.
I don’t see him staying, I mentioned earlier that where ever he goes, we will have to top his contract up to current value, someone will need a backup 7 for next season.

yeah, it is easy to forget that when we signed him we were desperate and had literally no NRL ready halves. AD was injured, we didn't have Sezer and Galvin and Fainu were 2 19 year old kids. Galvin hadn't even play a game against men yet.

Sure with hindsight the deal is not great but it was not unreasonable for the previous admin to assume that 2 19 years wouldn't be able to play at the level that Galvin and Fainu (when fit) have played.

Even then I still don't mind Sullivan staying on. He is still pretty young and has the talent to come good, a full year in NSW Cup and he might ended up developing the game to the level that he needs to.

The price tag will be heavy to carry for another year but we are required to pay the full salary cap amount anyway and there is no way our squad is worth 10 million with a third of the squad being teenagers likely on close to minimum wage. I reckon keep him for another year and then there will be some desperate clubs come 2026 as the market then is looking pretty empty and there is likely to be 1 or 2 new teams entering the player market as well.

 

[Tigerm]

This is behind the DT paywall, so I can’t see the whole article.
But the gist of it was, with many high paid players not being available for the whole season, for whatever reasons, should they consider bringing back a match payment system instead.
Interesting idea.

 

[BrotherJim05]

If Sullivan doesn't want to leave Wests Tigers then fair enough, stay here and become the best backup half you possibly can be. I can see Sullivan and Latu starting in halves in NSW cup. Will be great depth for next year.

 

[Nutz]

If Sullivan doesn't want to leave Wests Tigers then fair enough, stay here and become the best backup half you possibly can be. I can see Sullivan and Latu starting in halves in NSW cup. Will be great depth for next year.

This is it, that's what I was saying earlier, just make the most of every situation and something good will come of it. Most point in kicking stones.

 

[TheDefinitionOfMadness]

This is behind the DT paywall, so I can’t see the whole article.
But the gist of it was, with many high paid players not being available for the whole season, for whatever reasons, should they consider bringing back a match payment system instead.
Interesting idea.

I reckon it's a very good idea that unfortunately can't happen under the current collective bargaining agreement.

The clause is that all teams need to spend 95% of the cap.

This stops any other type of payment system outside what we currently have. This includes incentive contracts and match payment contracts.

I think this would have been one of the main sticking points when the RLPA, players, and NRL were at loggerheads last year (or was it the year before?) IMO I think the NRL should have stuck to their guns and let the players strike. Public opinion would have been dead set against the players, and they wouldn't have lasted a month without an income, before they folded like Frank Hyde's card table and came back to the negotiating table with their tail between their legs. Then, maybe we could have worked on something like what Riccio mentioned, for the betterment of all the teams and the game in general.

Having said that, Riccio should have known this, but wrote the article anyway, without mentioning it, except in passing. A journalist would have researched all the relevant facts first but Riccio is far from a journalist.

 

[WA Tiger]

The disaster that is sullivan stems from a freak occurrence last year. That is he had the incredible luck to be able to impersonate a gun player in the one game he played against us for the dragons and pretty much single handedly won the game with a couple of eye catching runs..he had me completely fooled thinking it was his natural talent.. I’d say Benji remembered his performance in that game as well.
Watching Sullivan play a few times this year I fear he is limited by his confidence but perhaps more by his level of game IQ of when to and how to..I get the feeling he’s max’d out in that dept, with limited room for improvement.