Confirmed: Matterson released from Wests Tigers.

[Cultured_Bogan]

Back on Matterson, the only way the club should release him is where there is significant net benefit for us. The way they played out Ivan last year worked out well for us. We hold the cards, he is contracted and he is wanted so whatever comes in the way of negotiation will favour us if another club wants him badly enough.

And just on the topic of contracts and players being "rightfully" able to seek more, if you engage a builder to build a two homes for you, he builds the first to a good standard & in accordance with the terms of the contract and he comes back to you and says "since I did a good job, can you pay me double now for the second one?" What would you say to them?

But when the customer becomes too demanding in the builder's eyes and wants to change the original plans completely from original deal

Matterson may have thought it was going to be a 3 bedroom single garage and bathroom under Cleary and then it ends up becoming a 200 unit skyscraper under Maguire .....

Oh so you're talking variations to the contract. Hiring a bloke to play first grade footy and he's playing first grade footy isn't a variation to the terms. Asking him to play first grade footy and run the marketing department is a variation.

He came here for first grade time, and he's getting it. Now apparently he's singing the blues because he's getting it?

 

[balmain boy]

The positive for us out of all this is that Matterson has unanimously been painted as the villain across the media and former players.

No wonder he wanted to flee the country and escape the media ridicule.

We have the backing off the major stakeholders in the game to take a hard stance on him. We're already on the front foot controlling these discussions. He's seen as the crying spoilt little baby. There are times when we could have done so but the media and players were already speaking out in favour of the player. Not this time.

 

[happy_tiger]

Back on Matterson, the only way the club should release him is where there is significant net benefit for us. The way they played out Ivan last year worked out well for us. We hold the cards, he is contracted and he is wanted so whatever comes in the way of negotiation will favour us if another club wants him badly enough.

And just on the topic of contracts and players being "rightfully" able to seek more, if you engage a builder to build a two homes for you, he builds the first to a good standard & in accordance with the terms of the contract and he comes back to you and says "since I did a good job, can you pay me double now for the second one?" What would you say to them?

But when the customer becomes too demanding in the builder's eyes and wants to change the original plans completely from original deal

Matterson may have thought it was going to be a 3 bedroom single garage and bathroom under Cleary and then it ends up becoming a 200 unit skyscraper under Maguire .....

Oh so you're talking variations to the contract. Hiring a bloke to play first grade footy and he's playing first grade footy isn't a variation to the terms. Asking him to play first grade footy and run the marketing department is a variation.

I'm talking about working for a person who was completely different than you signed the contract with

Lets be honest Cleary and Maguire are almost polar opposites as far as coaching NRL sides are concerned

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Back on Matterson, the only way the club should release him is where there is significant net benefit for us. The way they played out Ivan last year worked out well for us. We hold the cards, he is contracted and he is wanted so whatever comes in the way of negotiation will favour us if another club wants him badly enough.

And just on the topic of contracts and players being "rightfully" able to seek more, if you engage a builder to build a two homes for you, he builds the first to a good standard & in accordance with the terms of the contract and he comes back to you and says "since I did a good job, can you pay me double now for the second one?" What would you say to them?

But when the customer becomes too demanding in the builder's eyes and wants to change the original plans completely from original deal

Matterson may have thought it was going to be a 3 bedroom single garage and bathroom under Cleary and then it ends up becoming a 200 unit skyscraper under Maguire .....

Oh so you're talking variations to the contract. Hiring a bloke to play first grade footy and he's playing first grade footy isn't a variation to the terms. Asking him to play first grade footy and run the marketing department is a variation.

I'm talking about working for a person who was completely different than you signed the contract with

Lets be honest Cleary and Maguire are almost polar opposites as far as coaching NRL sides are concerned

He signed a contract to play first grade Rugby League football with Wests Tigers for 3 years for an agreed amount, correct? Is that not what he was doing?

So going back to the builder analogy if McDonald Jones builds me a house under an agreed contract and Bill McDonald sells his share of the business during the build can I ask for a discount? Or to relate it back to Rugby League, can Wests Tigers now invalidate any contract of a player that Ivan Cleary signed because he skipped out on us? No, because whenever you sign a contract there's always an associated risk. You're only ever one wrong tackle away from a career ending injury. There's always a chance your boss might skip out or be sacked. The CEO might change. Is that grounds for changing a contract? Or do we limit it to footy operations? "Hi Justin, the strapper got let go, my contract has changed, give me a pay rise or I'm gone."

 

[bigsiro]

The positive for us out of all this is that Matterson has unanimously been painted as the villain across the media and former players.

No wonder he wanted to flee the country and escape the media ridicule.

We have the backing off the major stakeholders in the game to take a hard stance on him. We're already on the front foot controlling these discussions. He's seen as the crying spoilt little baby. There are times when the we could have done so but the media and players were already speaking out in favour of the player. Not this time.

That's true.

 

[happy_tiger]

Back on Matterson, the only way the club should release him is where there is significant net benefit for us. The way they played out Ivan last year worked out well for us. We hold the cards, he is contracted and he is wanted so whatever comes in the way of negotiation will favour us if another club wants him badly enough.

And just on the topic of contracts and players being "rightfully" able to seek more, if you engage a builder to build a two homes for you, he builds the first to a good standard & in accordance with the terms of the contract and he comes back to you and says "since I did a good job, can you pay me double now for the second one?" What would you say to them?

But when the customer becomes too demanding in the builder's eyes and wants to change the original plans completely from original deal

Matterson may have thought it was going to be a 3 bedroom single garage and bathroom under Cleary and then it ends up becoming a 200 unit skyscraper under Maguire .....

Oh so you're talking variations to the contract. Hiring a bloke to play first grade footy and he's playing first grade footy isn't a variation to the terms. Asking him to play first grade footy and run the marketing department is a variation.

I'm talking about working for a person who was completely different than you signed the contract with

Lets be honest Cleary and Maguire are almost polar opposites as far as coaching NRL sides are concerned

He signed a contract to play first grade Rugby League football with Wests Tigers for 3 years for an agreed amount, correct? Is that not what he was doing?

So going back to the builder analogy if McDonald Jones builds me a house under an agreed contract and Bill McDonald sells his share of the business during the build can I ask for a discount? Or to relate it back to Rugby League, can Wests Tigers now invalidate any contract of a player that Ivan Cleary signed because he skipped out on us? No, because whenever you sign a contract there's always an associated risk. You're only ever one wrong tackle away from a career ending injury. There's always a chance your boss might skip out or be sacked. The CEO might change. Is that grounds for changing a contract? Or do we limit it to footy operations? "Hi Justin, the strapper got let go, my contract has changed, give me a pay rise or I'm gone."

Its 2019 , not 1985 CB whether we like it or not

He signed to play as an edge backrower for Cleary expecting to use his ball playing skills .......he got Maguire and in the end was used as a workaholic 13

I can see Matterson's POV .....he had multiple concussions last season being played in the exact role he tried to get away from at the Roosters

Football careers are short

I want him to stay at the WT's ....but the blame as usual is being pointed at the wrong person / people .....who let Cleary go or didn't let him go at the sensible time /stage ....this dumbass club .....again .......but the club is never wrong is it .....it always the refs fault ...the NRL's fault .....the coaches fault .....a players fault ......the media's fault

 

[Spud_Murphy]

The positive for us out of all this is that Matterson has unanimously been painted as the villain across the media and former players.

No wonder he wanted to flee the country and escape the media ridicule.

We have the backing off the major stakeholders in the game to take a hard stance on him. We're already on the front foot controlling these discussions. He's seen as the crying spoilt little baby. There are times when the we could have done so but the media and players were already speaking out in favour of the player. Not this time.

Yes true, but it won’t be for long. Once he puts his new colours on, starts playing great and is in line for Origin selection again, all will be forgiven by everyone bar Tigers supporters and we’ll be down a good player. That’s just the way it rolls.

 

[hsvjones]

I wonder if this situation was with the Roosters or Souths would the NRL step in .. Of course they would but as we are the smaller club they hate they will sit back and enjoy our misfortune again..

 

[bigsiro]

Another thing I don't really get is the value equation of a move.
He would have to get upwards of $650-750k per season for all these shenanigans to be worthwhile.

Is he really going to get a new 3 year deal worth that much? Who is going to pay him that? The Eels? Surely they don't have the cap space. Can only be the Titans? Eek.
So he sold his soul and forfeited any chances of winning a premiership to go *there*?

Scratching my head here!

I just think he totally underestimated the damage this did to his reputation on two fronts: (1) to his own character *and* (b) as a player who will respect a contract. Any new employer would have to be pretty damn wary.

He's as good as gone from the Tigers now. He was destined to become a rep player here, a captain, a leader, a cult hero.
And now he's gone and done this.

Sadly, he has been ill-advised by another greedy manager.

Foolish.

 

[tigerbalm]

has anything concrete or even remotely attached to a reliable source come forward?

Just asking cause I'm lazy and dont want to read 1000 pages. Apart from the club statement what else is actually known?

 

[Jimmy]

@tigerbalm the Pom made a statement earlier confirming the news Sadly

 

[2041]

The only good players going to clubs like the Titans and Knights are ones that are either:
(1) looking for more opportunity e.g.
Arrow, Wallace, Taylor from the Broncos
Peachey and Cartwright from the Panthers
Watson from the Roosters
Ponga from the Cowboys
(2) looking for a last contract payday
Eg Guerra and Glasby
Or (3) have a connection to the area
Eg Ramien and Proctor

Klemmer is the notable exception who wanted to get out of Sydney due to family issues.
It’s fair to say that money was also a big part of the Ponga signing because the Cowboys weren’t willing to pay for an unproven player. However in my opinion, Newcastle will struggle to retain him now that he’s proven himself as a superstar.

Also, forget about comparing clubs in the NRL era... the landscape has changed dramatically in the last 5-10 years. Eg the roosters were indeed in and out of the finals a lot in the latter half of the 2000s, but they’ve been in the top 4 six out of the last 7 times (this is going off memory, so feel free to fact check).

My point is, let’s not pretend all 16 clubs are created equally. Clubs like the Titans, Newcastle, and probably the Cowboys in a post-Thurston era, are going to struggle to maintain the same consistency as some of the big market clubs. The Raiders are in a similar boat but have made a smart strategic decision to recruit some of the top players from England. The Raiders are also in a sound financial position of the field.

As for what this means for the Tigers... I truly believe we are a sleeping giant, we just need to start winning! It’s a continuous feedback cycle... from a player’s perspective, success on the field brings individual recognition, which leads to rep opportunities, bonuses, higher contracts etc, which then in turn makes a club a desirable place for free agents.

If you want to define success as regularly making the top eight, there are several clubs that qualify as successful that don't have notably greater access to resources than the Tigers do: Manly, Cronulla, Souths and perhaps the Raiders. Three of those have won premierships this decade.

What do those clubs have in common? They reliably bring through good young players and while they lose a few they work hard to lock up the ones they want to keep, and they are pretty good at identifying the right ones to spend their money on. They also tend to supplement their squads with players who aren't being appropriately valued elsewhere rather than top-price free agents.

I've said it on here till I'm blue in the face but the Tigers aren't going to get good by trying to emulate the Roosters. There's also a good argument that once you put aside the Roosters, there is much, much more likelihood of succeeding via the youth development/finding gems approach than there is by the boom and bust method of signing expensive free agents.

Here's how I'd sum it up

Clubs that reliably sign players for top dollar
Roosters
Broncos
Titans
Bulldogs
Eels
Knights
Dragons

Clubs that rely more on talent identification and youth
Manly
Melbourne
Souths
Raiders
Warriors
Sharks
Panthers
Tigers
Cowboys

Does that make you think "wow, the only route to success is to spend big on free agents"? Because I look at it and see basically all the biggest underperformers in the comp (with the dishonorable exception of the Warriors) in the first group.

 

[tigerbalm]

@Jimmy


oh....well that sucks. Thanks mate.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Back on Matterson, the only way the club should release him is where there is significant net benefit for us. The way they played out Ivan last year worked out well for us. We hold the cards, he is contracted and he is wanted so whatever comes in the way of negotiation will favour us if another club wants him badly enough.

And just on the topic of contracts and players being "rightfully" able to seek more, if you engage a builder to build a two homes for you, he builds the first to a good standard & in accordance with the terms of the contract and he comes back to you and says "since I did a good job, can you pay me double now for the second one?" What would you say to them?

But when the customer becomes too demanding in the builder's eyes and wants to change the original plans completely from original deal

Matterson may have thought it was going to be a 3 bedroom single garage and bathroom under Cleary and then it ends up becoming a 200 unit skyscraper under Maguire .....

Oh so you're talking variations to the contract. Hiring a bloke to play first grade footy and he's playing first grade footy isn't a variation to the terms. Asking him to play first grade footy and run the marketing department is a variation.

I'm talking about working for a person who was completely different than you signed the contract with

Lets be honest Cleary and Maguire are almost polar opposites as far as coaching NRL sides are concerned

He signed a contract to play first grade Rugby League football with Wests Tigers for 3 years for an agreed amount, correct? Is that not what he was doing?

So going back to the builder analogy if McDonald Jones builds me a house under an agreed contract and Bill McDonald sells his share of the business during the build can I ask for a discount? Or to relate it back to Rugby League, can Wests Tigers now invalidate any contract of a player that Ivan Cleary signed because he skipped out on us? No, because whenever you sign a contract there's always an associated risk. You're only ever one wrong tackle away from a career ending injury. There's always a chance your boss might skip out or be sacked. The CEO might change. Is that grounds for changing a contract? Or do we limit it to footy operations? "Hi Justin, the strapper got let go, my contract has changed, give me a pay rise or I'm gone."

Its 2019 , not 1985 CB whether we like it or not

He signed to play as an edge backrower for Cleary expecting to use his ball playing skills .......he got Maguire and in the end was used as a workaholic 13

I can see Matterson's POV .....he had multiple concussions last season being played in the exact role he tried to get away from at the Roosters

Football careers are short

I want him to stay at the WT's ....but the blame as usual is being pointed at the wrong person / people .....who let Cleary go or didn't let him go at the sensible time /stage ....this dumbass club .....again .......but the club is never wrong is it .....it always the refs fault ...the NRL's fault .....the coaches fault .....a players fault ......the media's fault

How do you know Hap, were you at the meeting? He was a utility at Easts, that's probably why he was signed here also. He's played 5/8, second row and centre in reasonable capacity in his time over the years.

Does his contract specifically say he's employed to be a ball playing back rower? He played lock for six games. Spent pretty much all year at second row. I'd say he was largely used as per how he wanted to be.

And no, the club has done plenty wrong over the years, you'll get no argument from me there, but why are we taking the side of a player who's pulling the Mitch Moses card because he's upset that the club gave him everything that he agreed to and now that's not good enough? Goes back to what I said before. If he's been employed to play first grade Rugby League at Wests Tigers, and he has for the agreed amount, the contract has been met. That's the way contracts work. If the club is not in a position to upgrade him, that's his problem.

If we cannot get ample compensation for him leaving, make him stay and if he refuses to play, rub him out of the game. Let's see if he wants to sit on the sidelines for two years while his origin aspirations evaporate and potential future earnings go out the window. I'll bet he'll find his love for the club again all of a sudden.

 

[trentrunciman]

Why would any star want to come to the tigers, titans, Newcastle etc

What are you talking about, Newcastle are literally the poster-boy for the despondent Tigers fans that wish we bought better players. Klemmer, Pearce, Connor Watson, Ponga, Wallace, Jai Arrow, Peachey etc. just in the last few seasons.

The answer is money. Roosters and Storm have legitimately been the only stable successful clubs of the past decade or so, but even so, Roosters still have a very strong record of missing finals during the NRL era. Everyone else flips in and out. Nobody stays at the bottom forever, though Knights and Titans have been there a fair amount lately, and Tigers hover around middle.

They come for money, the real point is that unsuccessful clubs have to gamble where to spend that money. E.g. Knights obviously made a very good decision with Ponga, and yet that hasn't put them into finals frame yet.

I agree, certainly money is of course a major factor however in saying that generally speaking most players are more than willing to forfeit a portion of their pay to play at a more successful club. Especially younger players coming through who are looking for success (rep footy etc) and stability. Simply put the NRL doesn't have any contingencies to protect clubs who develop junior talent being poached by successful clubs nor any protection for clubs & player contractual obligations...then again its the nrl and it seems like its run like a circus...

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Why would any star want to come to the tigers, titans, Newcastle etc

What are you talking about, Newcastle are literally the poster-boy for the despondent Tigers fans that wish we bought better players. Klemmer, Pearce, Connor Watson, Ponga, Wallace, Jai Arrow, Peachey etc. just in the last few seasons.

The answer is money. Roosters and Storm have legitimately been the only stable successful clubs of the past decade or so, but even so, Roosters still have a very strong record of missing finals during the NRL era. Everyone else flips in and out. Nobody stays at the bottom forever, though Knights and Titans have been there a fair amount lately, and Tigers hover around middle.

They come for money, the real point is that unsuccessful clubs have to gamble where to spend that money. E.g. Knights obviously made a very good decision with Ponga, and yet that hasn't put them into finals frame yet.

I agree, certainly money is of course a major factor however in saying that generally speaking most players are more than willing to forfeit a portion of their pay to play at a more successful club. Especially younger players coming through who are looking for success (rep footy etc) and stability. Simply put the NRL doesn't have any contingencies to protect clubs who develop junior talent being poached by successful clubs nor any protection for clubs & player contractual obligations...then again its the nrl and it seems like its run like a circus...

They only do that because there's a fair to good chance it'll improve their origin and international aspirations which equals more $$$, or their part in the success boosts their asking price next time they come off contract.

 

[trentrunciman]

Why would any star want to come to the tigers, titans, Newcastle etc

What are you talking about, Newcastle are literally the poster-boy for the despondent Tigers fans that wish we bought better players. Klemmer, Pearce, Connor Watson, Ponga, Wallace, Jai Arrow, Peachey etc. just in the last few seasons.

The answer is money. Roosters and Storm have legitimately been the only stable successful clubs of the past decade or so, but even so, Roosters still have a very strong record of missing finals during the NRL era. Everyone else flips in and out. Nobody stays at the bottom forever, though Knights and Titans have been there a fair amount lately, and Tigers hover around middle.

They come for money, the real point is that unsuccessful clubs have to gamble where to spend that money. E.g. Knights obviously made a very good decision with Ponga, and yet that hasn't put them into finals frame yet.

I agree, certainly money is of course a major factor however in saying that generally speaking most players are more than willing to forfeit a portion of their pay to play at a more successful club. Especially younger players coming through who are looking for success (rep footy etc) and stability. Simply put the NRL doesn't have any contingencies to protect clubs who develop junior talent being poached by successful clubs nor any protection for clubs & player contractual obligations...then again its the nrl and it seems like its run like a circus...

They only do that because there's a fair to good chance it'll improve their origin and international aspirations which equals more $$$, or their part in the success boosts their asking price next time they come off contract.

I suppose what all this comes down to is how important a contract is...judging by the bits and pieces ive read re the nrl, contracts don't mean a lot...

I feel like Matterson is just a product of a broken down system.

 

[Geo]

Back on Matterson, the only way the club should release him is where there is significant net benefit for us. The way they played out Ivan last year worked out well for us. We hold the cards, he is contracted and he is wanted so whatever comes in the way of negotiation will favour us if another club wants him badly enough.

And just on the topic of contracts and players being "rightfully" able to seek more, if you engage a builder to build a two homes for you, he builds the first to a good standard & in accordance with the terms of the contract and he comes back to you and says "since I did a good job, can you pay me double now for the second one?" What would you say to them?

But when the customer becomes too demanding in the builder's eyes and wants to change the original plans completely from original deal

Matterson may have thought it was going to be a 3 bedroom single garage and bathroom under Cleary and then it ends up becoming a 200 unit skyscraper under Maguire .....

Oh so you're talking variations to the contract. Hiring a bloke to play first grade footy and he's playing first grade footy isn't a variation to the terms. Asking him to play first grade footy and run the marketing department is a variation.

I'm talking about working for a person who was completely different than you signed the contract with

Lets be honest Cleary and Maguire are almost polar opposites as far as coaching NRL sides are concerned

He signed a contract to play first grade Rugby League football with Wests Tigers for 3 years for an agreed amount, correct? Is that not what he was doing?

So going back to the builder analogy if McDonald Jones builds me a house under an agreed contract and Bill McDonald sells his share of the business during the build can I ask for a discount? Or to relate it back to Rugby League, can Wests Tigers now invalidate any contract of a player that Ivan Cleary signed because he skipped out on us? No, because whenever you sign a contract there's always an associated risk. You're only ever one wrong tackle away from a career ending injury. There's always a chance your boss might skip out or be sacked. The CEO might change. Is that grounds for changing a contract? Or do we limit it to footy operations? "Hi Justin, the strapper got let go, my contract has changed, give me a pay rise or I'm gone."

Its 2019 , not 1985 CB whether we like it or not

He signed to play as an edge backrower for Cleary expecting to use his ball playing skills .......he got Maguire and in the end was used as a workaholic 13

I can see Matterson's POV .....he had multiple concussions last season being played in the exact role he tried to get away from at the Roosters

Football careers are short

I want him to stay at the WT's ....but the blame as usual is being pointed at the wrong person / people .....who let Cleary go or didn't let him go at the sensible time /stage ....this dumbass club .....again .......but the club is never wrong is it .....it always the refs fault ...the NRL's fault .....the coaches fault .....a players fault ......the media's fault

Cool Mbye signed under Cleary to play fullback and Maguire put him in the centres..he should ask for a release..

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Why would any star want to come to the tigers, titans, Newcastle etc

What are you talking about, Newcastle are literally the poster-boy for the despondent Tigers fans that wish we bought better players. Klemmer, Pearce, Connor Watson, Ponga, Wallace, Jai Arrow, Peachey etc. just in the last few seasons.

The answer is money. Roosters and Storm have legitimately been the only stable successful clubs of the past decade or so, but even so, Roosters still have a very strong record of missing finals during the NRL era. Everyone else flips in and out. Nobody stays at the bottom forever, though Knights and Titans have been there a fair amount lately, and Tigers hover around middle.

They come for money, the real point is that unsuccessful clubs have to gamble where to spend that money. E.g. Knights obviously made a very good decision with Ponga, and yet that hasn't put them into finals frame yet.

I agree, certainly money is of course a major factor however in saying that generally speaking most players are more than willing to forfeit a portion of their pay to play at a more successful club. Especially younger players coming through who are looking for success (rep footy etc) and stability. Simply put the NRL doesn't have any contingencies to protect clubs who develop junior talent being poached by successful clubs nor any protection for clubs & player contractual obligations...then again its the nrl and it seems like its run like a circus...

They only do that because there's a fair to good chance it'll improve their origin and international aspirations which equals more $$$, or their part in the success boosts their asking price next time they come off contract.

I suppose what all this comes down to is how important a contract is...judging by the bits and pieces ive read re the nrl, contracts don't mean a lot...

I feel like Matterson is just a product of a broken down system.

I get clubs are just as complicit in this, I mean we know our club is trying to move on a handful of players now. But why is it that the risk always lies on the club? The club has to accept the associated risk that their new $1m a year signing might tear an ACL 10 minutes into their first match for the club and miss the season, the club has to accept the risk that another player might drop him on his head and may end his career, or that he may wind up being perpetually injured and playing half a season so why aren't players obligated to absorb associated risks that affects them like changing of staff? Why does the NRL allow them to sulk until they are released because they cannot absorb risk? And don't give me the "short career" analogy, I could fall off a roof of a building tomorrow and be perpetually incapacitated, footballers are not the only people exposed to this risk. I like the suggestion earlier that when a player or club initiates a termination before even half their contract is met they should pay a penalty to break the contract. Not sure about the actual logistics of it all but it could have some merit.

As for your first sentence, anyone on this forum take a serious interest in the AFL? Does this rubbish happen as often in that sport?

 

[TYGA]

A lot of debate on a simple issue. He sought a higher contract and a starting position left the Roosters who won a GF to get his chance to shine. He was close to the best player in the team and got into the NSW extended squad due to Madge and his training methods. Now history repeats itself and he wants to force an exit knowing the Tigers can’t pay him what the Eels and Titans have offered. It’s all about cash everything else is an excuse. If he wanted to win he’d stay with the Roosters.