Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
@krayola said in [Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion](/post/1099347) said:
@coivtny said in [Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion](/post/1099176) said:
@wokesmoke said in [Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion](/post/1099168) said:
@Cultured_Bogan said in [Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion](/post/1099166) said:
@swag_tiger said in [Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion](/post/1099164) said:
@wokesmoke said in [Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion](/post/1099163) said:
@swag_tiger said in [Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion](/post/1099160) said:
So did mitchell actually have a meeting with us today or was it just all rumours with no spark?

First up in the morning

Was it a positive meeting?

He doesn't know, it's smoking gun stirring everyone again.

Wrong. I liased with mr Pascoe this morning as previously stated. He is 50/50 on how it will go. End of the day, when it comes time to put pen to paper if he can forgo close to 1 million dollars over a
4 year period then that’s on him.

He can either follow in footsteps at Souths or create his own footsteps at the tigers.

No one really knows the character of the man.

I am in no way associated with this smoking gun person

I don't understand why you are being associated with this Mr Smoking Gun and his successors on this forum. It's as plain as the nose on your face that you are far too polite and civil to be these other people. The way you conduct yourself with your manners and insightful information makes you a credit to this forum. If anything I think you could be related to another forum member Magpies1963, perhaps the product of a illicit night of passion at the Chullora or Bass Hill drive-in.

Incredible work. So, smokinggun, Magpies1963, woke smoke and coivtny are all the same user. Kudos.

Love your work K-man. You've managed to add 2 and 2 to get 11.
 
@wokesmoke said in [Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion](/post/1099270) said:
@ElleryHanley said in [Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion](/post/1099268) said:
@THE_POM said in [Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion](/post/1099265) said:
@wokesmoke said in [Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion](/post/1099255) said:
@THE_POM said in [Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion](/post/1099252) said:
@wokesmoke said in [Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion](/post/1099250) said:
@THE_POM said in [Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion](/post/1099239) said:
@wokesmoke said in [Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion](/post/1099231) said:
@Red88_Tiger said in [Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion](/post/1099226) said:
@wokesmoke said in [Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion](/post/1099224) said:
Pascoe rates AJ. If latrell decides on Souths and AJ is made available Pascoe will sign him

Surely it should be who Madge rates not Pascoe

Be surprised how little the HC is involved in those decisions with new signings and cap management

That’s not even remotely close to the truth. Madge is directly involved & very selective on both new signings & re-signings. Gets advice on up & coming talent from scouts which he’s also closely involved with.

Every club differs. Madge doesn’t decide the numbers and terms.

He is consulted on value/worth & term of the deal. He’s hands on with roster management.

He literally has no say on value and worth. If he likes a player the club will attempt to get them.

How can a HEAD COACH not have not have any input on what a player is worth to his team & $$ on the cap.
1st you said he had next to nothing to do with recruitment.

We appreciate your input here Pom.

Just ignore Wokespoke and whatever 'personality' smoking gun is today. It is rather obvious he makes it up, contradicts himself literally every third post...you don't need to waste time explaining yourself to him mate.

How many rugby league club clubs have any of you worked directly for. I’m at 4. I might know a thing or 2 about internal structure

Did you do something in analytics by chance...?
 
@wokesmoke said in [Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion](/post/1099397) said:
@tiger05premier said in [Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion](/post/1099394) said:
@boonboon said in [Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion](/post/1099391) said:
People keep asking how souths have enough cap space but it doesent seem that surprising to me. At the start if last year they had Greg Inglis, Sam Burgess, George Burgess all on great money who are all gone and the only top class replacement has been a problem child James Roberts - should have plenty of cap space left

Plus John Sutton and Roberts would only be on half what GI was

They have reportedly upgraded a few but surely they have some to spend

I think their ability to spend money for LM this year hangs on whether they can get Arrow for this year and I also think they may have another forward in their plans as they have mainly lost forwards and GI was already replaced by Roberts

Sutton was on peanuts that last 12 months.

We just have to wait and see anyway

You say south's have stuff all to spend but if they do sign LM they obviously did have plenty because I personally highly doubt that LM would sacrifice a significant amount of money for any length of time

It would mean south's did have money or are handing him brown paper bags
 
If he signs on for one year only that could only be to help South's cap situation. Unlikely a manager would negotiate a deal for a player of that calibre for one year for any other reason. Pretty sure South's will still be working on trying to get Arrow.
 
@tiga4eva said in [Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion](/post/1099305) said:
Strong?
Cannot recall a game where he didn't drop a non contested kick...

Talk about exaggerating to fit your own agenda
 
@wokesmoke said in [Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion](/post/1099385) said:
Webby having his cake and eating it too with this “exclusive”

You do have a point. People so far are agitating about how NRL has let Souths manage to do it, but they haven't managed to do it, because no official announcement.
 
Thanks for the information POM - appreciate your effort in keeping us informed.

These other supposed "Know-it-alls" should give us a break and drop out.
 
There have been a lot of conflicting stories and speculation on the outcome of the Mitchell saga. Here’s more which comes from a reliable person who is also a part time psychic .
Mitchell wouldn’t look at the Tigers contract because it was too long. Clubs have previously withdrawn their offers because they have doubts about his intention to have a red hot go. Souths will only offer 12 months because of this reason and are using the sombrero defence. Is it possible LM wants just one last season playing with his mates and walking away with the cash for the farm?
 
@twentyforty said in [Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion](/post/1099420) said:
There have been a lot of conflicting stories and speculation on the outcome of the Mitchell saga. Here’s more which comes from a reliable person who is also a part time **psychic** .
Mitchell wouldn’t look at the Tigers contract because it was too long. Clubs have previously withdrawn their offers because they have doubts about his intention to have a red hot go. Souths will only offer 12 months because of this reason and are using the sombrero defence. Is it possible LM wants just one last season playing with his mates and walking away with the cash for the farm?

Can you ask them is West's have finals in their future?
 
As usual, Latrell has split the forum between those who want him and those who don't. Those who argue that, at his best, Latrell is a star are correct but the more I think about it the more I wouldn't touch him with a barge pole. I don't think he's ready to commit to three or four years of solid effort. I think he's looking to get some more money and get out. Can't blame him if that's what he wants but it means we should forget him and spend our money where we'll get value for money.
 
@coivtny said in [Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion](/post/1099424) said:
As usual, Latrell has split the forum between those who want him and those who don't. Those who argue that, at his best, Latrell is a star are correct but the more I think about it the more I wouldn't touch him with a barge pole. I don't think he's ready to commit to three or four years of solid effort. I think he's looking to get some more money and get out. Can't blame him if that's what he wants but it means we should forget him and spend our money where we'll get value for money.

When you have over $1m to spend 2 months before the season starts we don't need to be looking for good value. We need to be looking for the best player possible, even if it means spending slightly above market.
 
Not many of us know what we want at 22 and Latrell has already achieved and got more than most by playing footy. Stands to reason he might be a bit ambivalent about things, but he will mature. Still think we are yet to see the best from him.
 
@avocadoontoast said in [Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion](/post/1099429) said:
@coivtny said in [Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion](/post/1099424) said:
As usual, Latrell has split the forum between those who want him and those who don't. Those who argue that, at his best, Latrell is a star are correct but the more I think about it the more I wouldn't touch him with a barge pole. I don't think he's ready to commit to three or four years of solid effort. I think he's looking to get some more money and get out. Can't blame him if that's what he wants but it means we should forget him and spend our money where we'll get value for money.

When you have over $1m to spend 2 months before the season starts we don't need to be looking for good value. We need to be looking for the best player possible, even if it means spending slightly above market.

That's what I've been saying... Don't want to spend this cap space on a few fringe first graders especially because we have even more money next year.. Buts that's for another off season of drama :disappointed:
 
@hsvjones said in [Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion](/post/1099434) said:
@avocadoontoast said in [Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion](/post/1099429) said:
@coivtny said in [Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion](/post/1099424) said:
As usual, Latrell has split the forum between those who want him and those who don't. Those who argue that, at his best, Latrell is a star are correct but the more I think about it the more I wouldn't touch him with a barge pole. I don't think he's ready to commit to three or four years of solid effort. I think he's looking to get some more money and get out. Can't blame him if that's what he wants but it means we should forget him and spend our money where we'll get value for money.

When you have over $1m to spend 2 months before the season starts we don't need to be looking for good value. We need to be looking for the best player possible, even if it means spending slightly above market.

That's what I've been saying... Don't want to spend this cap space on a few fringe first graders especially because we have even more money next year.. Buts that's for another off season of drama :disappointed:

Now is not the time to be thrifty.
 
@twentyforty said in [Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion](/post/1099420) said:
There have been a lot of conflicting stories and speculation on the outcome of the Mitchell saga. Here’s more which comes from a reliable person who is also a part time psychic .
Mitchell wouldn’t look at the Tigers contract because it was too long. Clubs have previously withdrawn their offers because they have doubts about his intention to have a red hot go. Souths will only offer 12 months because of this reason and are using the sombrero defence. Is it possible LM wants just one last season playing with his mates and walking away with the cash for the farm?

I think we are clutching at straws. He is going to Souths because he wants to win games of footy. In a year, if he plays good footy, he knows that offer will be bumped from 400k. Given the timing of his dismissal, it also ruled out alot of clubs who I think will come back into the mix.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top