Signings, Suggestions & Rumours Discussion

I’d argue there’s accountability in moving players on that aren’t pulling their weight. If he’s kicking stones (I’m assuming) then see ya.

I'd say there's accountability if their losing money.

If nofo wants to forfeit his contract to go somewhere else then go for it. Paying for it not a good look imo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 851
I'd say there's accountability if their losing money.

If nofo wants to forfeit his contract to go somewhere else then go for it. Paying for it not a good look imo.
I hear ya. As long as it’s only subsidized and if we can upgrade the position. Pretty sure most clubs do it occasionally.
 
Bash them early , Gang tackles , line speed , put them off there game early and put Mitch on his back , he doesn’t like a lot of hits , simple game plan , from the kick off I want 4 in every tackle and push them backwards , kicking needs to be done along the ground and we should also push down field with kicks for touch in there red zone , Brooks will be marked but he just needs to run , Klemmer to smash Matterson , AD needs to crunch Brown , Joffa welcome back and stop Paulo , head on and hard
 
We have him for 2 seasons after this one ends. He can't be worth much over 150k. That is effectively 350k or around that per year we are overpaying.

That contract is terrible and I think it's what kills this club as well. Players want top dollar to stay.
Nah he’s worth more than minimum if he buys in and tries his best. My issue was always the length of the contract. The end result is extactly what have now.
 
I'm tired of this new age where a coach has to individually analyse every player and nurse him along appropriately. At what point do we draw the line in babying these grown men? Laurie had over 2 years being left in one position, that is more then enough nursing.

Laurie will play better in another team purely because every other team is better then ours and its easier to play well in a stronger team. It won't be because he wasn't "man managed" right.

It's time we as a society start putting some ownership on adults to be adults, and take responsibility for themselves.

There are some cases where this "man management" special treatment needs to come in, Laurie's is no such situation, not even close.

These players need to harden up.
Mate kids are not trending in that direction at all.
 
Mate kids are not trending in that direction at all.
I know that, i have an 18 and 16 year old. We need to curve it a little at least. It's going too far and certainly isn't fair on modern day coaches that grown men need to be treated the way they are. This came about because of an argument that Daine Laurie hasn't been treated right. I'd love to be given the treatment and opportunity Laurie has received.
 
Agree with you on most of what you have said in this article, but two things I beg to differ with you on.

One is When Ivan Cleary dumped us with the players he bought from Warriors, he left us with salary cap problems for a couple of years, and A terrible team, and nor did he do that well at the warriors, so he buried us, and joined his son at a club that was already set up for glory, his coaching has not done it the team of great players were already set up for him to just move in and get all the credit for creating the team, and 2 G/Finals.

And number 2 Item is Tim Sheens, I always thought Tim was a Great Coach but any coach that has a halfback in his team, that has caused his team to lose numerous games over a 10 year period,
And has contributed a big part to 5 straight losses this season, but Tim drops other players around brooksy but steadfastly refuses to drop him, and he continues to think brooks will come good.
Any other coach or club would drop him or get rid of him.
Cleary took that team to 9th, should have made the 8, Madge took that team to 9th again in his first season, also should have made the 8, and Cleary took the Warriors to the grand final, I would say his record in New Zealand was pretty good
 
Back
Top