Signings, Suggestions & Rumours Discussion

batboy said:
It's easy to assume that, But I believe you'll find it's either party mate (Not Both)
can take it up...
You're right,
A Mutual Option as you assume it to be - Would be redundant....
But it isn't both - It's either....

Usually taken up by a club who's got a good deal and used to re-negotiate to keep a player longer,
Or from the other side - A player who's being overpaid...

A reason why we've never heard of a 'mutual option' being triggered by both parties - It's always one or the other - Or if both parties are happy, A neww deal all together.
Click to expand...
I spoke to joffa about this when he was last negotiate with the club as he had a mutual option but he wasn't agreeing with the $ value on that contract.
 
426Tlgerland said:
We need to play our best players and Blore is well abouve a lot of up and comers , we need to move up the ladder not waste another season trying kids , give the kids the time they need and use Blore up if he is leaving in 25
Click to expand...
Agree. Play who’s best. Would be nice to make top 8 instead of another year of continuously trying new things that constantly fail.
 
Buttface said:
It’s somewhat like Kusties third nipple.
Click to expand...
I believe so, but other have stated they can be taken up by either party. I have spent a bit of time researching it tonight but can not find a definition for the NRL.

Though MLB mutual options require both parties to agree to the option, which is my understanding for the NRL as well.
 
I know this has already been posted but this is what NRL.com posted about the issue last week and I think it confirms that both parties have to agree to activate a mutual option, which is why I believe they are redundant.

Official 2024 NRL rosters​

Updated NRL Telstra Premiership rosters for the 2024 season are below. Contract lengths, as well as player, club and mutual options, are listed in full.

  • Player option (PO): Player has the option to activate additional year(s)
  • Club option (CO): Club has the option to activate additional year(s)
  • Mutual option (MO): Both parties discuss the option to activate additional year(s)
Click to expand...
 
cochise said:
I believe so, but other have stated they can be taken up by either party. I have spent a bit of time researching it tonight but can not find a definition for the NRL.

Though MLB mutual options require both parties to agree to the option, which is my understanding for the NRL as well.
Click to expand...
Yeah it’s gotta be that way I reckon.
 
cochise said:
I know this has already been posted but this is what NRL.com posted about the issue last week and I think it confirms that both parties have to agree to activate a mutual option, which is why I believe they are redundant.
Click to expand...
Or is that just the rules for the rorters and the rest of us the make it as they go.
 
cochise said:
I know this has already been posted but this is what NRL.com posted about the issue last week and I think it confirms that both parties have to agree to activate a mutual option, which is why I believe they are redundant.
Click to expand...
I feel like it’s probably used by a club when a player wants a longer deal. Yeah mate, we’ll give you three years but we’ll make that last year a mutual option. Effectively giving the bloke 2 years, the manager has a fee and a happy client, and the club can back out after 2 years. Classic rugby league.
 
BAGNF05 said:
I feel like it’s probably used by a club when a player wants a longer deal. Yeah mate, we’ll give you three years but we’ll make that last year a mutual option. Effectively giving the bloke 2 years, the manager has a fee and a happy client, and the club can back out after 2 years. Classic rugby league.
Click to expand...
Can backfire though, I player who has a really good second year is now worth more and he can also back out.
 
cochise said:
Can backfire though, I player who has a really good second year is now worth more and he can also back out.
Click to expand...
Yep totally redundant like you said, all I can think of is that you’re negotiating with a footy player who ain’t that bright and he feels like it’s more security for him and the fam. I wonder if it also changes when other clubs can come sniffing around??
 
Last edited:
426Tlgerland said:
Couple years ago it was about right , but now $ 3 maybe $ 350 k. Or go shopping in England and grab the young Pommy test centre , contract out in 24. Now’s the time to dive in cheap , he would come for
1) change to play NRL
2) to live in this great country for say 2 years / deal
3) won’t break the bank as I think it was mentioned he wants to come hear
Sun , Footy , Snags on BBQ , Prawns and cold beers after the game
Click to expand...
Omg …not like Gildart?
 
phil1986 said:
Just My opinion.

But I do feel that cowboys have the right idea. Luciano is talented, but is only getting less mobile.

A move to prop as they did a fair few times, is where he will end up. Less ground to cover laterally, and won’t be found out In the same way like you can be 3rd in.

That cowboys deal was 100% overs, and although I wanted to keep him. I am glad we didnt pay overs.
Click to expand...
Agreed, and also... WHY did the Cowboys sign Luciano for overs?
It was always a weird decision. They had a heap of local juniors and Brisvegas players that they could have lured up north. I bet you they are now regretting the high commitment.

Todd Payten is watching the Tigers and will bid on any of our talent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

... and 3 more.
Total: 1,554 (members: 53, guests: 1,501)
Back
Top