Signings, Suggestions & Rumours Discussion

sparci said:
I still can't believe we released a genuine first grade forward in Joe Offa this season, for what? To play Seyfarth and [This word has been automatically removed]in tommy talau off the bench?
Click to expand...
Who knows mate, there's a lot of talk about our juniors. Hopefully they are at least securing guys like Galvin, those juniors that have great reputation.
 
ElleryHanley said:
The main prob will be price.

Every single player manager knows we currently need four halves. AD won't play until mid 2024 at best.

So, we need NRL 6 and 7.

AND State cup 6 and 7 who can genuinely play NRL if needed.

Even if Wakeham is kept...it is still three more.

Managers for blokes like Volkam and Trindall will be able to ask for 2-300 000 more from us than they otherwise will get as every man and his dog knows we are desperate.
Click to expand...

Wakeham will get a nice pay bump if he stays as well especially if Brooks leaves & no one else is on the books.
 
Wiz said:
I believe it needs to be triggered by BOTH parties to be effective. Not just one of the parties.
Click to expand...

It doesn’t…
Had it Confirmed by a football manager a couple weeks back…

No disrespect - biggest myth in the game that it needs to be triggered by both. It’s in place to give both parties an even shot at triggering it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 851
batboy said:
It doesn’t…
Had it Confirmed by a football manager a couple weeks back…

No disrespect - biggest myth in the game that it needs to be triggered by both. It’s in place to give both parties an even shot at triggering it.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I’m sceptical of that.

If it is the case they need to change the name of it as “mutual” means both parties agreeing.
 
Wiz said:
Interesting. I’m sceptical of that.

If it is the case they need to change the name of it as “mutual” means both parties agreeing.
Click to expand...

I’ve had it confirmed before - elsewhere…
I just wanted to make sure I had it right…

Everyone focuses on the mutual part forgets the second word - “option”
It means both (mutual) parties have the ‘option’

Not having a shot - but where does your scepticism come from? Your understanding of what it should mean - or something more substantial?

I literally got it from the mouth of a guy who deals in options most days of his job…
 
batboy said:
I’ve had it confirmed before - elsewhere…
I just wanted to make sure I had it right…

Everyone focuses on the mutual part forgets the second word - “option”
It means both (mutual) parties have the ‘option’

Not having a shot - but where does your scepticism come from? Your understanding of what it should mean - or something more substantial?

I literally got it from the mouth of a guy who deals in options most days of his job…
Click to expand...
Just my understanding of the language. Possibly from the media but I can’t remember anything specific. I definitely could be wrong.

I know a low level player manager so will check with him next time we catch up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Staff online

Members online

Total: 586 (members: 15, guests: 571)
Back
Top