Lets hit back at manly
- Thread starter Milky
- Start date
sheer64
Well-known member
Ok make it happen.
happy_tiger
Well-known member
Why don't we just burn down Brookie ??
We can't afford to sign anyone
We can't afford to sign anyone
diedpretty
Well-known member
@Milky said:
Good point Milky but it also shows how weak our board is - we held all the aces on whether to release marty early or not - did we use our advantage to make a play for Knight or to get them to take Robbie on a reduced rate - not likely. We just rolled over and came up with some lame excuse of having money to pay our overrated halves.
goldcoast_tiger
New member
@happy tiger said:
Or petrol !!!
And probably not even matches.
stevetiger
New member
@happy tiger said:
This can't continually be a valid excuse. There is a salary cap. DCE and Taupau must be on the books at significant money. We cannot have too many more players being paid massive overs.
diedpretty
Well-known member
@yeti said:
I don't care who made the decision - my point is we held all the advantage and forfeited it. Also the board would have the power to veto any decision made by the football dept if they felt it wasn't in the best interests of the club.
stevetiger
New member
@magpiecol said:
Col - this is completely buying the spin. Marty was definitely one of our best forwards. He is probably our best. Woods has a bigger motor but Marty bends the line and gets us going forward.
If we have done this to pay Brooks and Moses overs again its crazy. I think Brooks and Moses can be great players but we had a dud season this year and we really need both halves to improve immensely.
"I don't care who made the decision - my point is we held all the advantage and forfeited it. Also the board would have the power to veto any decision made by the football dept if they felt it wasn't in the best interests of the club"
And my point is - why bring the Board into this discussion at all? It isn't the Board's job to second guess the decisions of the football operations. If necessary, that's the CEOs job.
So if you want to criticize the outcome of the Marty Tapau release, that's fine, but criticize those responsible. It seems far too many people on this Forum are far too quick to lay blame for every decision that they disagree with a the feet of the Board. That's nor fair nor does it add to any reasonable discussion.
And my point is - why bring the Board into this discussion at all? It isn't the Board's job to second guess the decisions of the football operations. If necessary, that's the CEOs job.
So if you want to criticize the outcome of the Marty Tapau release, that's fine, but criticize those responsible. It seems far too many people on this Forum are far too quick to lay blame for every decision that they disagree with a the feet of the Board. That's nor fair nor does it add to any reasonable discussion.
stevetiger
New member
@yeti said:
100% correct.
greatodensraven
New member
If we have the money, might be worth going after a few Souths players. They seem to be clearing the decks to bring back burgess
N
newtiger
Guest
In any business it is the board that sets the agenda,and the CEO carries out the the instructions of the board.
So the board would have been involved in the decidion to let Marty go.
Same as a council the mayor and the councillors make the decision and the General Manager carries out their instruction.
The WT board would have been up to their armpits in the decision to let Marty go.
So the board would have been involved in the decidion to let Marty go.
Same as a council the mayor and the councillors make the decision and the General Manager carries out their instruction.
The WT board would have been up to their armpits in the decision to let Marty go.
I am happy to let Marty go as he was offered excellent money for the next 4 years. You only have a limited time in our game so need to make the money whilst you can.
What I fail to understand that we appeared to be in a strong position to at least ask Manly for a much needed prop not a hooker.
Lawrence or Starling would have been ideal given we have no Galloway, Lodge or Marty.
The way this is playing out with JT and Farah saga will ruin season 2016 and put us firm favourites for the wooden spoon.
Failure means less fans through the gates and less games on prime time TV means less sponsors. thank you to who is responsible. NOT
What I fail to understand that we appeared to be in a strong position to at least ask Manly for a much needed prop not a hooker.
Lawrence or Starling would have been ideal given we have no Galloway, Lodge or Marty.
The way this is playing out with JT and Farah saga will ruin season 2016 and put us firm favourites for the wooden spoon.
Failure means less fans through the gates and less games on prime time TV means less sponsors. thank you to who is responsible. NOT
MightyMaggy
New member
@diedpretty said:
Isn't it amazing? Some posters on here complain that the "Wests Tigers Board" do not know anything about rugby league. (I do not believe the Board needs to have expertise in the game anyway.) When a decision is made by the Club that they do not like, the Board is blamed. If the Board knows nothing about the game, wouldn't you want the Board to leave the game-based decisions to those in the Club, who know about the Game?
@greatodensraven said:
Let's hit back at Manly? Why? They have done nothing wrong. It is getting like kindergarten around here.
As far as the players from Souths are concerned, I believe that there are three involved. Two forwards and a back.
If we obtained all three, there would be some on this forum who would decry this as getting other clubs' rejects, even though they are premiership winning players.
Go figure.
westTAHger
Well-known member
Best way to hit back at Manly, is to **beat them each time wests tigers play them.** 😛ray:
This is the best course of action.
This is the best course of action.
Staff online
-
DempsModerator