Taumololo's Big Payday

[Knight76]

Rubbish!
<snip>

Nah mate, if a club wants to get rid of a player, like the Knights did last year, they need to dump them to reserves, tell them they are not wanted any more and if they can find a team who wants them they won't stand in their way. Often this is because the player isn't living up to expectations.

Opposition clubs smell a bargain on their hands and the one that signs said out of form player does so at a reduced rate generally as who pays top dollar for an out of form club reject. That leaves the original club with paying the player to play at another club.

Now in the scenario that the player wants to leave, he makes his intentions known, that he is not happy anymore there and must leave. The club can choose to keep him but who wants a player at their club not wanting to be there, no putting in the effort, bringing the whole playing group down, so they generally let them go. The clubs only real bargaining chip to play here is to refuse to pay that player to play somewhere else, if he wants a release it is unconditional.

In your scenarios above: Cherry-Evans got out of his contract legally so that one is irrelevant. Jennings left the club and the panthers had to pay for him to play at the roosters, at least in his first season, reportedly $200k, so the player wins that one, And no doubt jennings wanted to stay, he was part way through a long contract that was heavily back ended, so who would want to walk away from that. But he did, and the panthers paid.

 

[RazorRam0n]

Nah mate, if a club wants to get rid of a player, like the Knights did last year, they need to dump them to reserves, tell them they are not wanted any more and if they can find a team who wants them they won't stand in their way. Often this is because the player isn't living up to expectations.

Opposition clubs smell a bargain on their hands and the one that signs said out of form player does so at a reduced rate generally as who pays top dollar for an out of form club reject. That leaves the original club with paying the player to play at another club.

Now in the scenario that the player wants to leave, he makes his intentions known, that he is not happy anymore there and must leave. The club can choose to keep him but who wants a player at their club not wanting to be there, no putting in the effort, bringing the whole playing group down, so they generally let them go. The clubs only real bargaining chip to play here is to refuse to pay that player to play somewhere else, if he wants a release it is unconditional.

In your scenarios above: Cherry-Evans got out of his contract legally so that one is irrelevant. Jennings left the club and the panthers had to pay for him to play at the roosters, at least in his first season, reportedly $200k, so the player wins that one, And no doubt jennings wanted to stay, he was part way through a long contract that was heavily back ended, so who would want to walk away from that. But he did, and the panthers paid.

because it worked so well for the tigers and robbie farah didn't it?

 

[Captain Apollo]

I'm not sure.
But if you've got a star player with 6 years to still run you'd do anything to keep them happy.

Even if "keeping them happy" means getting rid of a coach or other players or gutting the roster? Look at the Tigers as an example of what can happen when you spend all your time trying to keep the players happy.

Notice teams like the Broncos, Storm, Bulldogs, Roosters rarely, if ever, sign players on contracts of longer than 4 years.

 

[Nice Beaver]

DCE.

Yeah, he had a killer forward pack to lay a platform last season. Not to mention 5 halves partners.

But yeah, he is just complacent.....

 

[davi]

I think contracts should be capped at a max five years for a club, and four years if a player wants to sign with another club.

I think these Daly Cherry-Evans and Jason Taumalo deals are risking the future of the clubs. Also the back-end deals is what caused so much problems with Robbie Farah deal at the Tigers, I think there should be rules to reign them in as well.

Also the extra year give clubs an extra edge for clubs to hold on to their players, which is so difficult now with the salary cap.

 

[Knight76]

because it worked so well for the tigers and robbie farah didn't it?

Thank you for illustrating my point further that the player holds the power. Taylor obviously wanted him gone, Robbie didn't want to go and was willing to play in reserves and keep his contract.

Eventually Robbie left for Souths, and again, the Tigers had to pay. Quite a lot.

 

[Nice Beaver]

I think contracts should be capped at a max five years for a club, and four years if a player wants to sign with another club.

I think these Daly Cherry-Evans and Jason Taumalo deals are risking the future of the clubs. Also the back-end deals is what caused so much problems with Robbie Farah deal at the Tigers, I think there should be rules to reign them in as well.

Also the extra year give clubs an extra edge for clubs to hold on to their players, which is so difficult now with the salary cap.

Haven't the NRL already banned back-ended contract moving forward? Or at the very least restricted the levels and frequency.

 

[Hawkins]

I vote more against the length than the size.

 

[betcats]

Yeah, he had a killer forward pack to lay a platform last season. Not to mention 5 halves partners.

But yeah, he is just complacent.....

So he is excused for not playing his best because the forwards weren't good? He was below his best, he was even asked about not living up to his contract and the bagging he was getting for it and he said something like "I think its funny I am getting bagged for making lots of money" Lol theres no fire in him to live up to that deal.

 

[DiegoNT]

No, you wouldn't. You would do a lot to keep them happy no doubt but you aren't just going to f**k yourself for them.

Contract upgrades rarely happen without an extension, and who is going to extend a guy with 5 plus years already left and will be 33 when the current contract runs out.

I'm talking about a hypothetical were in 4 years time Lol is even better then he is now, the cowboys have recovered after the loss of Thurston like the Knights never did after joey and or how the Roosters struggled post Fittler. The cap has increased. Lolo walks into the cowboys top office, says his been offered 1.5m from the warriors, the all blacks have also made an offer, his wife is homesick, I need a new challenge etc etc bullshit I may even retire, you don't think the cowboys will kick a bit of extra money his way keep? Do you think it's in their best interest to be assholes and say ' nope we are keeping strict to the contract conditions'? May seem like their saving money by not upgrading but their not. It's better to chuck in a few extra hundred thousand to keep your star player happy especially since you have him for 6 more years then it would be to have a million dollar player unhappy, not wanting to be their and possibly quiting anyway.

 

[RazorRam0n]

Thank you for illustrating my point further that the player holds the power. Taylor obviously wanted him gone, Robbie didn't want to go and was willing to play in reserves and keep his contract.

Eventually Robbie left for Souths, and again, the Tigers had to pay. Quite a lot.

the point is it was a stupid decision by the club to give him that power.

 

[Nice Beaver]

So he is excused for not playing his best because the forwards weren't good? He was below his best, he was even asked about not living up to his contract and the bagging he was getting for it and he said something like "I think its funny I am getting bagged for making lots of money" Lol theres no fire in him to live up to that deal.

hahaha you'll have your opinion on him like everyone else.

I do agree he was down on form last year. No doubt. The reasons for that are where we differ in opinion.

If he has a great season this year I'll be keen to hear everyone's opinion.

Surround a player with good cattle and they will perform better. It's not rocket science.

Anyway, back on topic!

 

[betcats]

hahaha you'll have your opinion on him like everyone else.

I do agree he was down on form last year. No doubt. The reasons for that are where we differ in opinion.

If he has a great season this year I'll be keen to hear everyone's opinion.

Surround a player with good cattle and they will perform better. It's not rocket science.

Anyway, back on topic!

Look im not saying he should of dragged that team to the top 8 or anything but you yourself have just said he was down on form, so its not hard to see why someone might blame it on him being complacent after signing a huge long term deal. Anyway if he has a good year I will give him credit, I rated him very highly two years ago id love to see him get back to that form(but somehow have manly still suck).

 

[DiegoNT]

Even if "keeping them happy" means getting rid of a coach or other players or gutting the roster? Look at the Tigers as an example of what can happen when you spend all your time trying to keep the players happy.

Notice teams like the Broncos, Storm, Bulldogs, Roosters rarely, if ever, sign players on contracts of longer than 4 years.

Like I said, from Lolo's point of view its a good deal.
Every contract has risks. Storm resigned slater and he has played little footy over the last 3 years and may never be the same.
Don't think broncos did anything they could to keep lockyer happy? or storm and the big 3?

 

[Knight76]

the point is it was a stupid decision by the club to give him that power.

The debate was who holds the majority of power in contracts. The player does. I'm not interested in side points and tangents.

 

[Hawkins]

the point is it was a stupid decision by the club to give him that power.

Your signature block is memorizing. It's like a lava lamp.

AND WHEN THE f**k DID NATE MYLES HAVE HAIR?

 

[Shorty]

hahaha you'll have your opinion on him like everyone else.

I do agree he was down on form last year. No doubt. The reasons for that are where we differ in opinion.

If he has a great season this year I'll be keen to hear everyone's opinion.

Surround a player with good cattle and they will perform better. It's not rocket science.

Anyway, back on topic!

This just shows the subjectivity of it all.
I would argue a player becoming complacent is rare.
For starters these are top level footballers who have had to rise above to get to the level to be offered a large contract to begin with and that takes a certain personality type.

There are complacent players in the NRL...Dave Taylor...Jamaal Idris come to mind but not top level players.

But generally it's probably over thinking that they now have to justify being in the headlines and whether or not what they do is good enough for their price.
I get that feeling with DCE and to a lesser extent Inglis (but hes harder to read).

 

[shiznit]

Anyone that says Taumololo team has been stupid in this deal has to be kidding. They just guaranteed the kid 10 million dollars at the very least. There's also possible cap percentage increases, sponsorships, tpa's etc that will coming as well. If he has injury problems or loses form he still gets that money. He could have signed a richer shorter term but there's no guarantee he'd be in as strong a position next contract negotiation. And if he is still devastating years down the track I don't think he'll have a problem asking for an upgrade on the money value, and cowboys will probably allow it to keep their star happy. Or possibly he may stay at the same rate to allow a team to be built around him. He now has so much power yet also so much guaranteed to him. If in 5-8 years time cowboys do want to get rid of him he could just do a Winston Bogarde act and see out his days a rich man

Rubbish... from what I've read... Taumalolo has no rights to force the cowboys to renegotiate his contract.

If the cap rises significantly then he will be stuck on base of 1M a season for 10 years when others in his status will be earning anything between 2-3M a season.

And the only way out of it for Taumalolo would be to rely on the good graces of your club or potentially having to commit PR suicide by publicly sulking about your contract.

Not even NBA players who have guaranteed contracts for far, far more than this amount sign 10 year deals.

Good on the kid for securing his future... but im interested to see any future deals his agents have with the Cowboys for other players... because to me it looks like Taumalolo's agents just did the Cowboys a solid at the detriment of Taumalolo.

Im not advocating he does 1 year SBW type deals... but there ARE ways for him to do multiyear contracts with options in order to circumvent any injury risk.

 

[MilkShark]

With contracts like this, when has it actually been complacency?
Most of the time it's injury.

Tamou springs to mind. He never had a 10 year contract but that guy is a prime example of complacency.

 

[Canard]

Rubbish... from what I've read... Taumalolo has no rights to force the cowboys to renegotiate his contract.

It was rumored less than 24 hours ago, and only publicly confirmed at an 11.30am press conference.

Yet you've managed to gain an understanding of the terms of the contract in that timeframe?