Signings, Suggestions & Rumours Discussion

[Cobarcats]

Don't speak too soon... lol

We haven't confirmed Crichton.
We're still pretty bare for 2023.

The reason AC hasn't had his Rorters extention ratified by the NRL is because they would have gone over the cap.
The fact that they were chasing Munster and now reports have come in that they want Cobbo makes AC still a target IMO.
We can't play overs though, after all this time trying to get out of Cap mess.
Get AC at a good price and probably have enough for someone else.

 

[Nelson]

Yo

It's not as if, I dunno, Brad Arthur was reading the Telegraph at the breakfast nook and suddenly spat out his coffee saying "Aye caramba - you mean Angus Crichton is available! Fetch the cheque book!"

Your scenario does seem unlikely given Brad Arthur is neither Spanish nor Bart Simpson...

 

[pawsandclaws1]

I’d be wearing two pairs of undies if I was him 👀

Inside or outside your pants!

 

[tony soprano]

360 saying Angus Signing a monetary issue Tigers don't want to pay overs again in second row.

 

[Mighty Mouse]

If we get Crichton, we’ve got a top 8 team heading into next year. BUT I can’t see why he would come…

 

[Glenji95]

360 saying Angus Signing a monetary issue Tigers don't want to pay overs again in second row.

360 have no idea I wouldn’t listen to any of them

 

[tony soprano]

360 have no idea I wouldn’t listen to any of them

Read and Kent were saying it, said same thing with nikora. Watching our cap

 

[GCfan]

If we get Crichton, we’ve got a top 8 team heading into next year. BUT I can’t see why he would come…

Hasn’t worked for the Dogs, why would it work for us?
Still think we need another gun centre and even then the side needs to gel before we’d be capable of making the semis

 

[Westsboi2019]

360 saying Angus Signing a monetary issue Tigers don't want to pay overs again in second row.

The Pom's reported 2 mil figure over three years seems like a fair deal. Plus the 360 guys mentioned, towards the end, that the Roosters believe Angus would accept our offer

 

[BAGNF05]

360 have no idea I wouldn’t listen to any of them

Apart from Buzz, they seem to know what’s going on. Buzz is cooked.

 

[bigsiro]

If we get Crichton, we’ve got a top 8 team heading into next year.

Forwards would look better but backline needs two guns minimum to be anywhere near competitive.

 

[tony soprano]

The Pom's reported 2 mil figure over three years seems like a fair deal. Plus the 360 guys mentioned, towards the end, that the Roosters believe Angus would accept our offer

Perhaps 700k is too much for the second row.

 

[Westsboi2019]

Is it fair for a current rep forward? Just asking.

Perhaps 700k is too much for the second row.

 

[SeanT]

Hasn’t worked for the Dogs, why would it work for us?
Still think we need another gun centre and even then the side needs to gel before we’d be capable of making the semis

Yeah don't understand why fans overestimate a teams position. We will have a half decent team but still would be 12-7th spot if we all gel. Other teams.are.coming along to like the Broncos and Cowboys. Unless we get a decent centre,lock and front rowers as well we will be battling for the finals.

 

[swag_tiger]

Is it fair for a current rep forward? Just asking.

100% 700k for a player like Angus is what you would expect to pay nothing less.

 

[SeanT]

Is it fair for a current rep forward? Just asking.

Cowboys gave 700k to Luciano.

Fifita is on 1.2 mill haha.

No 700k for a current rep 2nd row who is both good in attack and defence and will bring leadership and professionalism is a no brainer. If we get him on top of the other two other players will start looking at us as a.destination.

 

[InBenjiWeTrust]

You forgot Lamar Liolevave.

But, wasn't he a 2nd rawer?

 

[Wombat]

2.2 is a good price for Angus... We were blessed to get papallii for 600k...
The way he is playing, he could have been up 700k also...

 

[Champ1]

Not disputing the disadvantage. The good teams overcome bad calls. We aren’t a good team.

Sorry Baga, the evidence suggest otherwise. For a considerable time, we have recived about 10 % of the so called 50/50 calls. It got a bit better for all lower teams when Payten & Holbrook publicly called out the refs. In tight games just one bogus called can decide a match. Good teams do overcome bad calls, by Nick Politus paying Trent Robinsons fines after Roosters only got 90% of the 50 /50 calls instead of the 100%. And what happened in following weeks since ? All the calls go their way once again. Its easy when the ref gives the Rorters , Melbourne & Penrith "offside" piggy back " penalties out of their end, But the same or even worse "offside"play by them doesnt get you piggback penalties. Another fave of the refs is giving those sides "'6 again" peanlties on tackle 5 , but then give the the lower sides "6 agains on tackle 1. And , when they get near the end of the game & start to realise there will be questions asked about the lopsided penalty count, they give 2 or 3 quick penalties to the lower sides so the ledger looks right after they have already cost you the game. I could half believe that some could be on field human error, but when the bunker looks at certain try 50 times to find something wrong , yet doesnt even replay the tops sides tries before awarding them , that is nothing but BS bias.

 

[BAGNF05]

Sorry Baga, the evidence suggest otherwise. For a considerable time, we have recived about 10 % of the so called 50/50 calls. It got a bit better for all lower teams when Payten & Holbrook publicly called out the refs. In tight games just one bogus called can decide a match. Good teams do overcome bad calls, by Nick Politus paying Trent Robinsons fines after Roosters only got 90% of the 50 /50 calls instead of the 100%. And what happened in following weeks since ? All the calls go their way once again. Its easy when the ref gives the Rorters , Melbourne & Penrith "offside" piggy back " penalties out of their end, But the same or even worse "offside"play by them doesnt get you piggback penalties. Another fave of the refs is giving those sides "'6 again" peanlties on tackle 5 , but then give the the lower sides "6 agains on tackle 1. And , when they get near the end of the game & start to realise there will be questions asked about the lopsided penalty count, they give 2 or 3 quick penalties to the lower sides so the ledger looks right after they have already cost you the game. I could half believe that some could be on field human error, but when the bunker looks at certain try 50 times to find something wrong , yet doesnt even replay the tops sides tries before awarding them , that is nothing but BS bias.

I don’t disagree with you. There is a bias, I think we feel it most in the policing of the ruck. Only way to overcome it is to get better around the ruck and become a better side.