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!

The Rumours Thread

BLM01

First Grade
Messages
9,625
I don't necessarily disagree but I think RCG would've been good for us. As some have pointed out, he's not some special front rower, and we needed more to compliment him, but for our squad I think he would've been good. Now if the Broncs are offering him 3 years then that is just plain dumb, but I would have to assume it will also be 2 years.. meaning we just missed out because we were too slow and dumb in getting something done. D Saf does not improve us enough either, is known as a lazy trainer and player, and will not provide the same level of experience to our younger guys as someone like RCG. The sticking point for me with D Saf is this: the only front rower that will be going to market that improves us significantly himself is Leo Thompson, so he is who we desperately need. If we go back to the table for D Saf, all we do is help the Knights keep Thompson. There is now basically no one available to compliment D Saf in a front row partnership that improves us enough to be a threat. We will be no more than a team sitting between 6th-10th spot, whereas complimenting someone like Thompson with another decent front rower takes us higher up the table. D Saf + Thompson would be good, but considering they're from the same side, it won't happen. Knights will just end up keeping Thompson if D Saf signs anywhere else.
Maybe but they have more cap pressure elsewhere especially Ponga on 1.4m highest paid player
That is why they want to get rid of Brailey Elliott and others
RCG would be fine for us but DS can be turned to improve whichever way you think he is lacking on or off the field by a good strong coach as us young enough
It happens sometimes and don’t we know it when someone is overpaid fir too long
RCG has reached his peak and the only way is down
Thompson will stay regardless him and JS would be their only decent props left
 

Parko1310

Juniors
Messages
1,374
Glad to know you're in the inner circle and know what the circumstances were......
Or...........Maybe SF did what's best for the long term good for the club by not doing a bad deal? I wouldn't call that slow or dumb.
Not saying that, I'm saying if the Broncs offer is 2 years (as I would assume 3 years for RCG is too long for anyone), then we simply missed out. 2 years wouldn't be a bad deal.. that's what we were always going for. This deal has been going on for over a month.. that is slow business. Not pinning it on Flano, he's got a team to coach. The club, the so called GM, the CEO and the board need to do better. Employ some people in the right positions and move on people like Haran. It is obvious in this case and many others that we have failed because of slow, incompetent business
 

possm

Coach
Messages
15,737
He has to want to come to Saints

If he isn’t interested, we are better off blooding Tonga and Stewart

We will struggle for 2 years

How is that any different to playing has beens.

Nothing special about Gillard.

Better to offer Leo Thompson massive overs and a long contract than Gillard.
It's not a matter of playing RCG, Tonga, or Stewart. I'm sure we are committed to developing our talented juniors. However, now we are looking for experienced first-grade props who are above the level of Larie and the Couchman boys. A prop rotation of two new props plus Molo and Couchman would be ideal. The remaining props who are still under contract can move on or spend 2025 playing in reserve-grade.

The Couchman boys are being prepared for regular first-grade duties and there is no reason why Tonga and Stewart would not be treaded the same if they are ready and have performed well during off-season training.
 

possm

Coach
Messages
15,737
Your right, we need to move Haran, Millward and Millard on. Our CEO (Web) needs to be more assertive. The Board really should not be involved at this level.
 
Top