Signings, Suggestions & Rumours Discussion

[hsvjones]

FWIW, one of the conditions of Moses was the Tigers re-sign Brooks to at least 3+ years

and I don't have a problem with that.
I think we need a half to control the game and Moses does this and Brooks is a great ball runner.
TBF to all our halves it would have been extremely hard to play most weeks behind our so called forward pack and all the injuries that occurred. Times are changing my friends and its starts now.

 

[cktiger]

He is an average kicker, and can throw a decent pass, he is awkward to tackle . Against that, he also throws some terrible passes, has an overated and telegraphed kicking game, takes the wrong option on the edge, can't tackle and is a ball hog.

And, with al that, still more talented than Brooks.

 

[pawsandclaws1]

If there is the slightest bit of truth to what you say moses should have been told that he is a "player not an owner of the club" and immediately been told that he has no say in who plays for the club

Good players want to play with good players. We increase the quality of the players in our team - Klemmer, Koroiseau, Papali'i', Bateman, Staines - we get better results. Win win.

 

[Kaito]

Grub made the dogs top 30 squad. 🤔

That's crazy. An injury to Perham
or either of their halves would likely
see him slot in with Biondo Odo out
& the release of Wakeham last week

 

[cktiger]

Good players want to play with good players. We increase the quality of the players in our team - Klemmer, Koroiseau, Papali'i', Bateman, Staines - we get better results. Win win.

Maybe so … but why want Brooks for 3 years?
I know he’s his mate but that’s just pity.

 

[king_sirro]

If there is the slightest bit of truth to what you say moses should have been told that he is a "player not an owner of the club" and immediately been told that he has no say in who plays for the club

Brooks is one of his best mates. Moses was never going to come here at the expense of a mate, it was always only a possibility if it meant they played together. That has been well lnown since all this saga started. So I think he is entitled to make sure his mate wasn't getting shafted for him.

 

[Mighty_Tiger]

If there is the slightest bit of truth to what you say moses should have been told that he is a "player not an owner of the club" and immediately been told that he has no say in who plays for the club

Harsh in some ways. Can hardly fault him for it.

Moses is a marquee player, he would want to know who he is planned to play with for the next few years as that is part of the sell to the marquee player.

Brooks no doubt would be the maim draw card for him, they are besties, played alot in juniors together, lived together for years, have kids weeks apart, they still talk about playing together again and still live around the block from each other. I can’t fault him for asking it if he has a clear preference to play next to him. We don’t need to say yes though.

At Parra he also knows the combinations - it’s who we are competing against - Gutho, Brown, Hodgo.

For us it’s currently?, ?, Moses & Api if he came.

It would be an important factor to know who is going to be the key players attack wise.

 

[king_sirro]

And, with al that, still more talented than Brooks.

Didn't you claim another poster was like a broken record the other day? Think you need a little self reflection if you start throwing claims like that at others.

 

[Jedi_Tiger]

If there is the slightest bit of truth to what you say moses should have been told that he is a "player not an owner of the club" and immediately been told that he has no say in who plays for the club

why is that ? at Parramatta he knows Brown will be the 6, he just wants to know who his 6 will be.
Doesn't mean the club has to re-sign anyone but if they dint then it probably makes the decision easy for Moses, he stays an eel

 

[pawsandclaws1]

Harsh in some ways. Can hardly fault him for it.

Moses is a marquee player, he would want to know who he is planned to play with for the next few years as that is part of the sell to the marquee player.

Brooks no doubt would be the maim draw card for him, they are besties, played alot in juniors together, lived together for years, have kids weeks apart, they still talk about playing together again and still live around the block from each other. I can’t fault him for asking it if he has a clear preference to play next to him. We don’t need to say yes though.

At Parra he also knows the combinations - it’s who we are competing against - Gutho, Brown, Hodgo.

For us it’s currently?, ?, Moses & Api if he came.

It would be an important factor to know who is going to be the key players attack wise.

Good post.

 

[Jedi_Tiger]

Harsh in some ways. Can hardly fault him for it.

Moses is a marquee player, he would want to know who he is planned to play with for the next few years as that is part of the sell to the marquee player.

Brooks no doubt would be the maim draw card for him, they are besties, played alot in juniors together, lived together for years, have kids weeks apart, they still talk about playing together again and still live around the block from each other. I can’t fault him for asking it if he has a clear preference to play next to him. We don’t need to say yes though.

At Parra he also knows the combinations - it’s who we are competing against - Gutho, Brown, Hodgo.

For us it’s currently?, ?, Moses & Api if he came.

It would be an important factor to know who is going to be the key players attack wise.

if it was AD he was wanting to play with plenty on here wouldn't have an issue lol
But because it is Brooks ...

 

[Jedi_Tiger]

Brooks is one of his best mates. Moses was never going to come here at the expense of a mate, it was always only a possibility if it meant they played together. That has been well lnown since all this saga started. So I think he is entitled to make sure his mate wasn't getting shafted for him.

plus good mates and same manager too. I'd say Isaac would be wanting to get Moses sorted and an extension of some kind for brooks too. Issue will come down to price tigers are willing to part with for brooks I guess

 

[pawsandclaws1]

Maybe so … but why want Brooks for 3 years?
I know he’s his mate but that’s just pity.

Moses is a very good player. As others have written, he wants to know who will partner him and have certainty over the combination.

 

[vlad]

FWIW, one of the conditions of Moses was the Tigers re-sign Brooks to at least 3+ years

No real shock there

 

[cktiger]

Didn't you claim another poster was like a broken record the other day? Think you need a little self reflection if you start throwing claims like that at others.

Can’t recall doing so … well, not in those words.
Unless you’re talking about Brooks being a Dally M Halfback of the Year 🤣
Anyways just stating the truth… even in reflection.

 

[Jedi_Tiger]

I think we still have to use it. Probably changes to getting a gun fullback and keeping Brooks and AD I guess

 

[earl]

If there is the slightest bit of truth to what you say moses should have been told that he is a "player not an owner of the club" and immediately been told that he has no say in who plays for the club

Correct. I don't believe this though. You can't have potential recruits running the club. If true Sheens and his team should be sacked immediately.

 

[pawsandclaws1]

I think we still have to use it. Probably changes to getting a gun fullback and keeping Brooks and AD I guess

If you're playing center or wing and Moses and Brooks are the 6 and 7, you'd see lots of ball and would be happy.

 

[earl]

if it was AD he was wanting to play with plenty on here wouldn't have an issue lol
But because it is Brooks ...

No. The issue is the idea that a potential recruit can pick the team and manage the roster.

 

[Jedi_Tiger]

No. The issue is the idea that a potential recruit can pick the team and manage the roster.

call BS on that if he said he wanted AD plenty on here would not have an issue...
Players like to k ow who they are going to play with all the time nothing new