Gould up to his tricks (again)

To be fair, braith was incredibly diplomatic through the Lachlan ilias saga at the dragons and could have carried on like a pork chop, but didnt... I think he is one of the most honest in the media in the sense he just tells you what he thinks without the BS or politics
I tend to agree. But it doesn't change the conflict between the two positions.
 
We can at least put to bed that the excuse for leaving is ot playing in a top team.Currently - we are playing like a top team. If he does leave ' it's money. - do you begrudge him that? Put yourself in his shoes.

In today's world of greed - where history seems to repeat itself and the term Evolution - is a play on words - a spell on humankind - to give them an inkling of hope whilst sailing in the Bermuda triangle on a cold dark soulless night without a compass or moon 🌙.

And Gould - totally suspect. Naming Api as his NSW hooker. Is that to deviate the West's Tigers fans from the Bula scent. And affording any player he wants just like Politis on a whim.
 
To be fair, braith was incredibly diplomatic through the Lachlan ilias saga at the dragons and could have carried on like a pork chop, but didnt... I think he is one of the most honest in the media in the sense he just tells you what he thinks without the BS or politics
100%
 
A few thoughts.

My first thought based on comments and then listening to the video was perhaps it was a reference to their pursuit of Fuller for this year only.

I then noted he didn't tell them not to buy a fullback. He said signing a fullback won't instantly solve their problems. Their problems run deeper than who their fullback is. Now this could be viewed as swaying Bula or anyone else against going there but again he could have similar discussions behind closed doors when pitching Dogs over other options. Personally I think he is just offering his opinion rather than trying to sway an outcome.

Finally, I read in one of my group chats that Drinkwater has signed with Dragons (not sure if this is speculation or has been reported). This may be what has prompted the problems run deeper than simply signing a fullback comment.
All possible, but still does not change the point that he should not be commenting on the Dragons recruitment to a position the Dogs are actively competing with them for. He can give all the analysis he wants without having to do that. Thats where the issue of perceived conflict is
 
I can't really fault Pascoe here.
From the 2023 season, Bula was looking like the next NRL gun.
Locking him up till 2027 makes sense. Sure Bula turned out Good but not Great...

I don't know what you would have the WT do differently? What's your suggestion:
Hard ball - offer 500k and lock him up for 5 years?

Not lock him up - offer enough for him to stay 2 years and re-negotiate?


I can see hard balling with unders not working as Bula is looking to leave now. He would be definately gone if he was on say 400k. I also see a smaller extension not working.

So what would you have them do? I know NOT leave the guy to sign up with Issac Moses.

It's not the money that's the big issue, its the short duration of extra option. It accomplishes nothing in our favor.

Even if we do take up the option, we're basically left stuck paying overs just to have to go in and negotiate a year later with two extra clubs joining the competition. Except this time the bidding now starts at 900k and above. And not just for money, but for our reputation with keeping talent.

Pascoe was always about trying to save his bacon in the short term, and couldn't visualise or imagine what leverage we would have at the end of contracts. You know, the same guy who had the clubs 4 best players coming off contract at the same time in 2017-- He really is that stupid. Never played chess a day in his life.

He never had a plan B, and couldn't afford one anyway because our cap was almost completely front loaded paying overs for veterans when he was in charge. You'll notice Richo was very quick to sign a fella called Javon Andrews. And look, in general, most agents just knew they had his measure.

You only get one Alan Bond in your lifetime, and Moses has had his Pascoe.
 
All possible, but still does not change the point that he should not be commenting on the Dragons recruitment to a position the Dogs are actively competing with them for. He can give all the analysis he wants without having to do that. Thats where the issue of perceived conflict is
I don't think the conflict is just perceived. It is clear. Should he be commenting? Probably not. Are his comments being made to manipulate outcomes for the Dogs? Debatable at best.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top