Dale Finucane

[twentyforty]

Buzz reckons Finucane is on $650k at Storm and WT can’t get him for $950k. ?

I heard that too, think it’s purely speculation and the media just highlighting the difficulty with clubs like ours attracting good players in demand. I actually liked the way Kent said if you put the Storm squad on the market they’d be worth $11M but the bulldogs roster would be worth $6M. Highlights the issue bottom clubs face

Yes, I liked that comparison drawn by Kenty. I've often wondered how clubs value a player? Is there a math equation with variables added? or is it a "what the market will accept based on needs evaluation?
If we're not paying overs for a new recruit, how do we know that? At what point are we in danger of exceeding the limit and entering overs territory?

Simple answer players are rated from 1 - 5 points ......for example ...then a club can only spend 100 pts again an example ...they still pay what ever money you are happy to spend ...but a club can't exceed 100 points ....

A rating of 1-5 is a pretty vague sort of thing?
I would prefer a much more precise rating system. Say like a rough red would be around high 80’s compared to a top of the line Barossa Shiraz at say 100, similar to your QLD beauty. Then again, a ratings system more like thoroughbred racehorses where a top of the line black type is at say 114.
Beats me why recruitment team wouldn’t have developed an accurate ratings system and update it regularly?
A new joint venture .. The Happy twenty forty rating agency. ?

 

[barra]

Buzz reckons Finucane is on $650k at Storm and WT can’t get him for $950k. ?

I heard that too, think it’s purely speculation and the media just highlighting the difficulty with clubs like ours attracting good players in demand. I actually liked the way Kent said if you put the Storm squad on the market they’d be worth $11M but the bulldogs roster would be worth $6M. Highlights the issue bottom clubs face

Yes, I liked that comparison drawn by Kenty. I've often wondered how clubs value a player? Is there a math equation with variables added? or is it a "what the market will accept based on needs evaluation?
If we're not paying overs for a new recruit, how do we know that? At what point are we in danger of exceeding the limit and entering overs territory?

Simple answer players are rated from 1 - 5 points ......for example ...then a club can only spend 100 pts again an example ...they still pay what ever money you are happy to spend ...but a club can't exceed 100 points ....

A rating of 1-5 is a pretty vague sort of thing?
I would prefer a much more precise rating system. Say like a rough red would be around high 80’s compared to a top of the line Barossa Shiraz at say 100, similar to your QLD beauty. Then again, a ratings system more like thoroughbred racehorses where a top of the line black type is at say 114.
Beats me why recruitment team wouldn’t have developed an accurate ratings system and update it regularly?
A new joint venture .. The Happy twenty forty rating agency. ?

I would be surprised if at least some clubs don't already have a rating system in place.
A rating system to keep rosters even has been debated on the forum a few times... I'm a fan but many hate the idea. I just think we are getting closer and closer to having something like it as the new rules are highlighting the difference in squad quality and yes, while it is up to clubs to make themselves more attractive for recruitment, one way or the other (read legally or illegally) some clubs will always do better than others.
A player having a rating will sort a lot of problems. This would need to be done independently and I would make ratings out of a much higher number than 5 though, as there would be a large amount of fields that a player receives a rating on, all would need to be based on hard data to exclude opinion and there are so many different types of stats these days, it could be done.
Everything is measurable, everything is quantifiable.

 

[happy_tiger]

Buzz reckons Finucane is on $650k at Storm and WT can’t get him for $950k. ?

I heard that too, think it’s purely speculation and the media just highlighting the difficulty with clubs like ours attracting good players in demand. I actually liked the way Kent said if you put the Storm squad on the market they’d be worth $11M but the bulldogs roster would be worth $6M. Highlights the issue bottom clubs face

Yes, I liked that comparison drawn by Kenty. I've often wondered how clubs value a player? Is there a math equation with variables added? or is it a "what the market will accept based on needs evaluation?
If we're not paying overs for a new recruit, how do we know that? At what point are we in danger of exceeding the limit and entering overs territory?

Simple answer players are rated from 1 - 5 points ......for example ...then a club can only spend 100 pts again an example ...they still pay what ever money you are happy to spend ...but a club can't exceed 100 points ....

A rating of 1-5 is a pretty vague sort of thing?
I would prefer a much more precise rating system. Say like a rough red would be around high 80’s compared to a top of the line Barossa Shiraz at say 100, similar to your QLD beauty. Then again, a ratings system more like thoroughbred racehorses where a top of the line black type is at say 114.
Beats me why recruitment team wouldn’t have developed an accurate ratings system and update it regularly?
A new joint venture .. The Happy twenty forty rating agency. ?

Reds are in the bottom twenty ..Rangas can't be trusted or needed and in that case taste like poo ....

 

[earl]

So what you’re paying overs for, is his leadership.

I don't want leadership. I want tackle busts. Next.

 

[hobbo1]

Buzz reckons Finucane is on $650k at Storm and WT can’t get him for $950k. ?

I heard that too, think it’s purely speculation and the media just highlighting the difficulty with clubs like ours attracting good players in demand. I actually liked the way Kent said if you put the Storm squad on the market they’d be worth $11M but the bulldogs roster would be worth $6M. Highlights the issue bottom clubs face

Yes, I liked that comparison drawn by Kenty. I've often wondered how clubs value a player? Is there a math equation with variables added? or is it a "what the market will accept based on needs evaluation?
If we're not paying overs for a new recruit, how do we know that? At what point are we in danger of exceeding the limit and entering overs territory?

Simple answer players are rated from 1 - 5 points ......for example ...then a club can only spend 100 pts again an example ...they still pay what ever money you are happy to spend ...but a club can't exceed 100 points ....

A rating of 1-5 is a pretty vague sort of thing?
I would prefer a much more precise rating system. Say like a rough red would be around high 80’s compared to a top of the line Barossa Shiraz at say 100, similar to your QLD beauty. Then again, a ratings system more like thoroughbred racehorses where a top of the line black type is at say 114.
Beats me why recruitment team wouldn’t have developed an accurate ratings system and update it regularly?
A new joint venture .. The Happy twenty forty rating agency. ?

Reds are in the bottom twenty ..Rangas can't be trusted or needed and in that case taste like poo ....

Is that why your teeth are brown ?

 

[weststigerman]

So what you’re paying overs for, is his leadership.

I don't want leadership. I want tackle busts. Next.

What about tackling? We are so focused on attack, no wonder we can't defend.

 

[Demps]

So what you’re paying overs for, is his leadership.

I don't want leadership. I want tackle busts. Next.

8 Twal
9 Brooks
10 Utoikamanu
11 Hudson Young *
12 Shawn Blore
13 Billy Magoulias *

14 Liddle
15 Offa
16 Luciano
17 Seyfarth

Does this work?

 

[Alex Seyfarth's #1 Fan]

Unless you can clone him 7 times, he wont help much

This. Finucane is not a silver bullet. He may kill it at another club, but I don't see him as a good value signing. We signed Tamou, who has made zero impact on our defensive woes. We only need a couple of these types of players around the group to get the desired effect. Ofahengaue and Twal can probably be included with Tamou as leaders.

It's just not a good value signing for us. What we need are young players who have been in our systems for years, and can come in and immediately execute their role in our system. If we are going to pay overs for a player, we should be spending it on young players with talent with minimal or no NRL experience.

 

[Tigerboy]

Unless you can clone him 7 times, he wont help much

This. Finucane is not a silver bullet. He may kill it at another club, but I don't see him as a good value signing. We signed Tamou, who has made zero impact on our defensive woes. We only need a couple of these types of players around the group to get the desired effect. Ofahengaue and Twal can probably be included with Tamou as leaders.

It's just not a good value signing for us. What we need are young players who have been in our systems for years, and can come in and immediately execute their role in our system. If we are going to pay overs for a player, we should be spending it on young players with talent with minimal or no NRL experience.

Good post, Kid. Spot on

 

[Cairnstigers]

Buzz reckons Finucane is on $650k at Storm and WT can’t get him for $950k. ?

I heard that too, think it’s purely speculation and the media just highlighting the difficulty with clubs like ours attracting good players in demand. I actually liked the way Kent said if you put the Storm squad on the market they’d be worth $11M but the bulldogs roster would be worth $6M. Highlights the issue bottom clubs face

Yes, I liked that comparison drawn by Kenty. I've often wondered how clubs value a player? Is there a math equation with variables added? or is it a "what the market will accept based on needs evaluation?
If we're not paying overs for a new recruit, how do we know that? At what point are we in danger of exceeding the limit and entering overs territory?

Simple answer players are rated from 1 - 5 points ......for example ...then a club can only spend 100 pts again an example ...they still pay what ever money you are happy to spend ...but a club can't exceed 100 points ....

Who gives the players the rating…for example Funicane maybe a2 at the Storm and a 5 at Wests Tigers

NRL of course ....and Finucane is a 8 at the Tigers

Your ratings were 1-5…

Yeah but most of our players would get a 0
So Finucane would get some bonus points because he would have to carry the team

 

[twentyforty]

Buzz reckons Finucane is on $650k at Storm and WT can’t get him for $950k. ?

I heard that too, think it’s purely speculation and the media just highlighting the difficulty with clubs like ours attracting good players in demand. I actually liked the way Kent said if you put the Storm squad on the market they’d be worth $11M but the bulldogs roster would be worth $6M. Highlights the issue bottom clubs face

Yes, I liked that comparison drawn by Kenty. I've often wondered how clubs value a player? Is there a math equation with variables added? or is it a "what the market will accept based on needs evaluation?
If we're not paying overs for a new recruit, how do we know that? At what point are we in danger of exceeding the limit and entering overs territory?

Simple answer players are rated from 1 - 5 points ......for example ...then a club can only spend 100 pts again an example ...they still pay what ever money you are happy to spend ...but a club can't exceed 100 points ....

A rating of 1-5 is a pretty vague sort of thing?
I would prefer a much more precise rating system. Say like a rough red would be around high 80’s compared to a top of the line Barossa Shiraz at say 100, similar to your QLD beauty. Then again, a ratings system more like thoroughbred racehorses where a top of the line black type is at say 114.
Beats me why recruitment team wouldn’t have developed an accurate ratings system and update it regularly?
A new joint venture .. The Happy twenty forty rating agency. ?

I would be surprised if at least some clubs don't already have a rating system in place.
A rating system to keep rosters even has been debated on the forum a few times... I'm a fan but many hate the idea. I just think we are getting closer and closer to having something like it as the new rules are highlighting the difference in squad quality and yes, while it is up to clubs to make themselves more attractive for recruitment, one way or the other (read legally or illegally) some clubs will always do better than others.
A player having a rating will sort a lot of problems. This would need to be done independently and I would make ratings out of a much higher number than 5 though, as there would be a large amount of fields that a player receives a rating on, all would need to be based on hard data to exclude opinion and there are so many different types of stats these days, it could be done.
Everything is measurable, everything is quantifiable.

In addition to rating players, a value band, or upper limit on positions would be helpful. Perhaps a 1 with a range of $500k - $850, a 2 at $300k- $500k etc.?

 

[InBenjiWeTrust]

Unless you can clone him 7 times, he wont help much

This. Finucane is not a silver bullet. He may kill it at another club, but I don't see him as a good value signing. We signed Tamou, who has made zero impact on our defensive woes. We only need a couple of these types of players around the group to get the desired effect. Ofahengaue and Twal can probably be included with Tamou as leaders.

It's just not a good value signing for us. What we need are young players who have been in our systems for years, and can come in and immediately execute their role in our system. If we are going to pay overs for a player, we should be spending it on young players with talent with minimal or no NRL experience.

Bag to disagree, IMHO, Tamou can only teach how to run up to 35m per game, Mr Packer could provide additional knowledge!

 

[BAGNF05]

It makes the next meeting with a player so much more likely to end well if you have Dale Finucane’s agreement in your back pocket. He is the kind of signing that could totally change the perception of the club in a minute. Depending a little on how much of our war chest we actually have, I’d go very hard.

 

[Lauren]

So what you’re paying overs for, is his leadership.

I don't want leadership. I want tackle busts. Next.

Agreed.
The club's biggest problem is that we have no identity. So we need to atleast show we're competitive on the field in order to change the perception of our club and culture.
No one seems to know who or where we are as a club.
This is why we go back to the previous blueprint until we get where we need to be. We've already got some fantastic young talent to base the team around but we need some x factor and some competitive edge - above anything else.
The good clubs have a brand or distinct playing style and it's what I'd like to see this team to return to.

 

[TYGA]

I wouldn’t sign Dale Finucane. Great player, plays tough but he doesn’t have the help at the Tigers. His age is the big issue we will suck for at least 3 years. He’s a leader and can improve our forwards in all areas but we’d have to have Tamou retire or get rid of some players.

I’d rather we bite the bullet now and blood Tuilagi, Tuki Simpkins in first grade for the rest of the year to see what we have. Twal, Tamou, Luciano, Garner are pretty much known quantities. We won’t gain anything for next year trying to win a few games to move up the ladder to 11th.

 

[TYGA]

Unless you can clone him 7 times, he wont help much

This. Finucane is not a silver bullet. He may kill it at another club, but I don't see him as a good value signing. We signed Tamou, who has made zero impact on our defensive woes. We only need a couple of these types of players around the group to get the desired effect. Ofahengaue and Twal can probably be included with Tamou as leaders.

It's just not a good value signing for us. What we need are young players who have been in our systems for years, and can come in and immediately execute their role in our system. If we are going to pay overs for a player, we should be spending it on young players with talent with minimal or no NRL experience.

Nail on the head

 

[frullens]

I wouldn’t sign Dale Finucane. Great player, plays tough but he doesn’t have the help at the Tigers. His age is the big issue we will suck for at least 3 years. He’s a leader and can improve our forwards in all areas but we’d have to have Tamou retire or get rid of some players.

I’d rather we bite the bullet now and blood Tuilagi, Tuki Simpkins in first grade for the rest of the year to see what we have. Twal, Tamou, Luciano, Garner are pretty much known quantities. We won’t gain anything for next year trying to win a few games to move up the ladder to 11th.

Tamou dropping to reserves and teaching/mentoring the next generation isn't the worst outcome.

He is on a relatively low wage.
Think of him replacing packer in reserve, but providing leadership and on 1/4 of the wage

 

[Mighty_Tiger]

I wouldn’t sign Dale Finucane. Great player, plays tough but he doesn’t have the help at the Tigers. His age is the big issue we will suck for at least 3 years. He’s a leader and can improve our forwards in all areas but we’d have to have Tamou retire or get rid of some players.

I’d rather we bite the bullet now and blood Tuilagi, Tuki Simpkins in first grade for the rest of the year to see what we have. Twal, Tamou, Luciano, Garner are pretty much known quantities. We won’t gain anything for next year trying to win a few games to move up the ladder to 11th.

The issue is if we don’t get 2-3 bigger names we have no chance of building a serious quality squad unless its all juniors or punt players. And those juniors have no winning example to learn from.

Going after Dale, Cheese & TPJ of course doesn’t solve world hunger for us but he is a player others would look and go yeah I want to play beside him and talks with other players would become more legitimate. No serious player would look at Lucy, Garner, Seyfarth, Twal, Tamou and go yeah where can I sign.

Going after Sua is just like what we have done before but with a shoulder.

We lose it over a team like the Bulldogs who is spending money and getting some good players but then look at ourselves and go we have a war chest of money yet nabbed Hasting and Gildart……

We need to take pressure of the kids not just whack them in when we are getting thumped by 30-60, that helps no junior player ever all they learn is how to lose.

 

[Fade.To.Black]

Unless you can clone him 7 times, he wont help much

This. Finucane is not a silver bullet. He may kill it at another club, but I don't see him as a good value signing. We signed Tamou, who has made zero impact on our defensive woes. We only need a couple of these types of players around the group to get the desired effect. Ofahengaue and Twal can probably be included with Tamou as leaders.

It's just not a good value signing for us. What we need are young players who have been in our systems for years, and can come in and immediately execute their role in our system. If we are going to pay overs for a player, we should be spending it on young players with talent with minimal or no NRL experience.

The problem with the last sentence (the players with no NRL experience part) is that you could very well end up with a team full of Ashley Taylor's, Michael Chee Kam's, Moses Suli's, Jacob Miller's etc etc etc. Blokes that are guns in the juniors but are bog-average once they hit 1st grade. On huge contracts. Not sure about that strategy TBH.
Need to be able to quickly identify talented juniors who demonstrate an ability to easily handle 1st grade and show above average ability and work ethic. Especially the work ethic part.

 

[Guest]

We won't be signing Finucane - he's asking for more than the WT are willing to pay and wants a long term deal which is the other sticking point.