Will Flanagans arrive @ club & is Brooks finally going??

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting. Probably been taking unders so that we can pay off all the high profile flops we had on big contract.
If you assess his output agaisnt the likes of Reynolds, Packer, MBye you’d agree he deserves it at this club.
Furthermore. I would agree that his market value at this stage is probably between 550 and 650. If we have him on 1.2 next year we need to offer to pay off at least half of it so that the new club can sign him long term on roughly 550000 a year.
Otherwise there will be no takers.
The ace up our sleeve though is advising him before he goes to market in November that there will be NO contract available for season 24. This will make him available earlier for consideration for other clubs where they will be able to see if they can fit him into their salary cap.

I’ve noticed the Dragons have ditched their rookie combo after just 3 games and are playing Jack Bird in the halves.
Griffen has form in signing players on contract from other clubs.
 
Half time in the footy 9 News announced breaking news as previously stated….
here is the big question?..?
why did they not run the story on 6 o’clock news ??
nothing in sports about it …..
the story was pulled from the air ….
anyone curious as to why they pulled the story?
 
1eyedmel said:
I thoroughly agree with you, and I don't mind the idea of giving kyle a shot. I don't think Changing the coach would make any difference, history has proven that already. When brooks fails at his next club it will be see you in superheated where he belongs.
Click to expand...
Kyle Flanagan is as slow as a wet week and the Bulldogs know it - leave them to marinate in their own filth!
In any case Brooks is on $1.1mil next season - nobody will touch that with a barge pole, we’re stuck with Brooks.
 
Andrew Johns wants him and after today's flogging from Melbourne, bulldogs might still be interested. I don't care where he goes the sooner the better.
 
clokan said:
I'm calling BS, why hasn't this been mentioned before. Chammas hasn't the greatest record reporting on the Tigers, has a grudge against Madge. I also thought the club put an end to back ended contracts before we resigned Brook's
Click to expand...
Yeah ,they also put an end to paying players to play for another club. But I swear I saw Mybe in red and white today, so...
 
GNR4LIFE said:
Funny we’re only hearing now that he’s on 1.1 next year and not any time in the last 3 years. It’s almost as if they are looking for petrol to pour onto the flames.
Click to expand...
He’s on like 800k .or was a few years ago ! Also your not allowed to back end contracts like that anymore since Hasler screwed the dogs .

But hey where’s my pitch fork ?
 
clokan said:
I'm calling BS, why hasn't this been mentioned before. Chammas hasn't the greatest record reporting on the Tigers, has a grudge against Madge. I also thought the club put an end to back ended contracts before we resigned Brook's
Click to expand...

The NRL did , after the dogs
 
gallagher said:
Yeah ,they also put an end to paying players to play for another club. But I swear I saw Mybe in red and white today, so...
Click to expand...

As far as I knew , his final year was this year , and he chose to forgo that year to sign a multi year deal with dragons . We didn’t pay a cent .
 
Strongee said:
As far as I knew , his final year was this year , and he chose to forgo that year to sign a multi year deal with dragons . We didn’t pay a cent
Click to expand...
Doubt it. If he was on say $800 k with us then that amount would have to show on saints salary cap no matter what they paid him.
 
Too many gullible people on here. Chammas has no contacts at the club, he's not liked at all. And of the very few people who would know why would any of them release the info? Brooks' agent is trying to get him to another club, so providing an inflated figure of his value will only deter potential suitors. Same goes for Brooks himself. Whether WT want to offload him or keep him it's no interest of ours to release such a high figure.

Even when he was at his peak we never signed him to a deal that big. He's done nothing to get a bigger deal. I find it incredibly impossible to believe that a renegotiated contract for a player who wasn't performing all that well at the time would be so big heavily back ended. Especially when we've been under the cap the past couple of years!

The NRL has also been clamping down on clubs using heavily back ended deals for a while.

None of it makes any sense, for any party. If it looks like crap and smells like crap, it's probably crap...

And no to either Flanno. We don't need the halfback and don't think Flanno snr is the answer either.
 
balmain boy said:
Too many gullible people on here. Chammas has no contacts at the club, he's not liked at all. And of the very few people who would know why would any of them release the info? Brooks' agent is trying to get him to another club, so providing an inflated figure of his value will only deter potential suitors. Same goes for Brooks himself. Whether WT want to offload him or keep him it's no interest of ours to release such a high figure.

Even when he was at his peak we never signed him to a deal that big. He's done nothing to get a bigger deal. I find it incredibly impossible to believe that a renegotiated contract for a player who wasn't performing all that well at the time would be so big heavily back ended. Especially when we've been under the cap the past couple of years!

The NRL has also been clamping down on clubs using heavily back ended deals for a while.

None of it makes any sense, for any party. If it looks like crap and smells like crap, it's probably crap...

And no to either Flanno. We don't need the halfback and don't think Flanno snr is the answer either.
Click to expand...
Paying any more than $400k for Brooks doesn't make sense but I'm sure we're doing that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 741 (members: 7, guests: 734)
Back
Top