Madge Maguire - Mega Thread

[pawsandclaws1]

The most pain less option is to exercise the mechanism the club apparently has written into Maguire's contract extension (as reported by Chammas). If true, the WTs were aware of concerns about Maguire's relationships with players since April 21. These concerns were serious enough to have that mechanism included (and thankfully it was written into his extension). Perhaps our Chairman and CEO are on top of this matter? It certainly seems that way.

If only they put clauses into the contracts of former high paid recruits that said they had to contribute something (anything) to the club. They’re on top of nothing but constant failure.

 

[BAGNF05]

The most pain less option is to exercise the mechanism the club apparently has written into Maguire's contract extension (as reported by Chammas). If true, the WTs were aware of concerns about Maguire's relationships with players since April 21. These concerns were serious enough to have that mechanism included (and thankfully it was written into his extension). Perhaps our Chairman and CEO are on top of this matter? It certainly seems that way.

If only they put clauses into the contracts of former high paid recruits that said they had to contribute something (anything) to the club. They’re on top of nothing but constant failure.

How can you write that? The Club acted and inserted this clause to protect it from a huge payout. It appears a very sensible course of action.

Coach wasn’t the problem before and while it may seem that way to you, its not now. No coach has been given an NRL quality roster by the WT administration since 2011-12.

 

[pawsandclaws1]

The most pain less option is to exercise the mechanism the club apparently has written into Maguire's contract extension (as reported by Chammas). If true, the WTs were aware of concerns about Maguire's relationships with players since April 21. These concerns were serious enough to have that mechanism included (and thankfully it was written into his extension). Perhaps our Chairman and CEO are on top of this matter? It certainly seems that way.

If only they put clauses into the contracts of former high paid recruits that said they had to contribute something (anything) to the club. They’re on top of nothing but constant failure.

How can you write that? The Club acted and inserted this clause to protect it from a huge payout. It appears a very sensible course of action.

Coach wasn’t the problem before and while it may seem that way to you, its not now. No coach has been given an NRL quality roster by the WT administration since 2011-12.

This dates back to Apr 21. Obviously the Club considered what they knew to be serious enough to include a clause in his contract extension. Smoke, fire, form.

 

[BAGNF05]

The most pain less option is to exercise the mechanism the club apparently has written into Maguire's contract extension (as reported by Chammas). If true, the WTs were aware of concerns about Maguire's relationships with players since April 21. These concerns were serious enough to have that mechanism included (and thankfully it was written into his extension). Perhaps our Chairman and CEO are on top of this matter? It certainly seems that way.

If only they put clauses into the contracts of former high paid recruits that said they had to contribute something (anything) to the club. They’re on top of nothing but constant failure.

How can you write that? The Club acted and inserted this clause to protect it from a huge payout. It appears a very sensible course of action.

Coach wasn’t the problem before and while it may seem that way to you, its not now. No coach has been given an NRL quality roster by the WT administration since 2011-12.

This dates back to Apr 21. Obviously the Club considered what they knew to be serious enough to include a clause in his contract extension. Smoke, fire, form.

Players get their nose out of joint when you tell them they are not good enough. Wow big surprise. I thought Madge came here to fix the place.

 

[Snake]

The most pain less option is to exercise the mechanism the club apparently has written into Maguire's contract extension (as reported by Chammas). If true, the WTs were aware of concerns about Maguire's relationships with players since April 21. These concerns were serious enough to have that mechanism included (and thankfully it was written into his extension). Perhaps our Chairman and CEO are on top of this matter? It certainly seems that way.

If only they put clauses into the contracts of former high paid recruits that said they had to contribute something (anything) to the club. They’re on top of nothing but constant failure.

How can you write that? The Club acted and inserted this clause to protect it from a huge payout. It appears a very sensible course of action.

Coach wasn’t the problem before and while it may seem that way to you, its not now. No coach has been given an NRL quality roster by the WT administration since 2011-12.

This dates back to Apr 21. Obviously the Club considered what they knew to be serious enough to include a clause in his contract extension. Smoke, fire, form.

There was always something brewing when the announcement of Sheens coming back with no designated position .. what was it a floating roll .

 

[pawsandclaws1]

The most pain less option is to exercise the mechanism the club apparently has written into Maguire's contract extension (as reported by Chammas). If true, the WTs were aware of concerns about Maguire's relationships with players since April 21. These concerns were serious enough to have that mechanism included (and thankfully it was written into his extension). Perhaps our Chairman and CEO are on top of this matter? It certainly seems that way.

If only they put clauses into the contracts of former high paid recruits that said they had to contribute something (anything) to the club. They’re on top of nothing but constant failure.

How can you write that? The Club acted and inserted this clause to protect it from a huge payout. It appears a very sensible course of action.

Coach wasn’t the problem before and while it may seem that way to you, its not now. No coach has been given an NRL quality roster by the WT administration since 2011-12.

This dates back to Apr 21. Obviously the Club considered what they knew to be serious enough to include a clause in his contract extension. Smoke, fire, form.

Players get their nose out of joint when you tell them they are not good enough. Wow big surprise. I thought Madge came here to fix the place.

 

[BAGNF05]

The most pain less option is to exercise the mechanism the club apparently has written into Maguire's contract extension (as reported by Chammas). If true, the WTs were aware of concerns about Maguire's relationships with players since April 21. These concerns were serious enough to have that mechanism included (and thankfully it was written into his extension). Perhaps our Chairman and CEO are on top of this matter? It certainly seems that way.

If only they put clauses into the contracts of former high paid recruits that said they had to contribute something (anything) to the club. They’re on top of nothing but constant failure.

How can you write that? The Club acted and inserted this clause to protect it from a huge payout. It appears a very sensible course of action.

Coach wasn’t the problem before and while it may seem that way to you, its not now. No coach has been given an NRL quality roster by the WT administration since 2011-12.

This dates back to Apr 21. Obviously the Club considered what they knew to be serious enough to include a clause in his contract extension. Smoke, fire, form.

Players get their nose out of joint when you tell them they are not good enough. Wow big surprise. I thought Madge came here to fix the place.

This is not about the players. The Club made the decision to include this mechanism in the contract extension as reported by Chammas.

What mechanisms? Did it say, we expect you to win with a bottom 4 roster or we can sack you and replace you with another poor sucker.

 

[pawsandclaws1]

The most pain less option is to exercise the mechanism the club apparently has written into Maguire's contract extension (as reported by Chammas). If true, the WTs were aware of concerns about Maguire's relationships with players since April 21. These concerns were serious enough to have that mechanism included (and thankfully it was written into his extension). Perhaps our Chairman and CEO are on top of this matter? It certainly seems that way.

If only they put clauses into the contracts of former high paid recruits that said they had to contribute something (anything) to the club. They’re on top of nothing but constant failure.

How can you write that? The Club acted and inserted this clause to protect it from a huge payout. It appears a very sensible course of action.

Coach wasn’t the problem before and while it may seem that way to you, its not now. No coach has been given an NRL quality roster by the WT administration since 2011-12.

This dates back to Apr 21. Obviously the Club considered what they knew to be serious enough to include a clause in his contract extension. Smoke, fire, form.

Players get their nose out of joint when you tell them they are not good enough. Wow big surprise. I thought Madge came here to fix the place.

This is not about the players. The Club made the decision to include this mechanism in the contract extension as reported by Chammas.

What mechanisms? Did it say, we expect you to win with a bottom 4 roster or we can sack you and replace you with another poor sucker.

It's the mechanism to end his contract with minor pain in terms of payout as reported by Chammas.

 

[BAGNF05]

The most pain less option is to exercise the mechanism the club apparently has written into Maguire's contract extension (as reported by Chammas). If true, the WTs were aware of concerns about Maguire's relationships with players since April 21. These concerns were serious enough to have that mechanism included (and thankfully it was written into his extension). Perhaps our Chairman and CEO are on top of this matter? It certainly seems that way.

If only they put clauses into the contracts of former high paid recruits that said they had to contribute something (anything) to the club. They’re on top of nothing but constant failure.

How can you write that? The Club acted and inserted this clause to protect it from a huge payout. It appears a very sensible course of action.

Coach wasn’t the problem before and while it may seem that way to you, its not now. No coach has been given an NRL quality roster by the WT administration since 2011-12.

This dates back to Apr 21. Obviously the Club considered what they knew to be serious enough to include a clause in his contract extension. Smoke, fire, form.

Players get their nose out of joint when you tell them they are not good enough. Wow big surprise. I thought Madge came here to fix the place.

This is not about the players. The Club made the decision to include this mechanism in the contract extension as reported by Chammas.

What mechanisms? Did it say, we expect you to win with a bottom 4 roster or we can sack you and replace you with another poor sucker.

It's the mechanism to end his contract with minor pain in terms of payout as reported by Chammas.

Copy and paste it into our playing contracts and we’ve actually solved a problem.

 

[Snake]

The most pain less option is to exercise the mechanism the club apparently has written into Maguire's contract extension (as reported by Chammas). If true, the WTs were aware of concerns about Maguire's relationships with players since April 21. These concerns were serious enough to have that mechanism included (and thankfully it was written into his extension). Perhaps our Chairman and CEO are on top of this matter? It certainly seems that way.

If only they put clauses into the contracts of former high paid recruits that said they had to contribute something (anything) to the club. They’re on top of nothing but constant failure.

How can you write that? The Club acted and inserted this clause to protect it from a huge payout. It appears a very sensible course of action.

Coach wasn’t the problem before and while it may seem that way to you, its not now. No coach has been given an NRL quality roster by the WT administration since 2011-12.

This dates back to Apr 21. Obviously the Club considered what they knew to be serious enough to include a clause in his contract extension. Smoke, fire, form.

Players get their nose out of joint when you tell them they are not good enough. Wow big surprise. I thought Madge came here to fix the place.

This is not about the players. The Club made the decision to include this mechanism in the contract extension as reported by Chammas.

What mechanisms? Did it say, we expect you to win with a bottom 4 roster or we can sack you and replace you with another poor sucker.

Even a bottom 4 roster can be taught a defensive structure after 3 seasons ..a so called Mechanism was the smartest move the club made to cover there butts as he should never had been given and extension until mid season !

 

[pawsandclaws1]

The most pain less option is to exercise the mechanism the club apparently has written into Maguire's contract extension (as reported by Chammas). If true, the WTs were aware of concerns about Maguire's relationships with players since April 21. These concerns were serious enough to have that mechanism included (and thankfully it was written into his extension). Perhaps our Chairman and CEO are on top of this matter? It certainly seems that way.

If only they put clauses into the contracts of former high paid recruits that said they had to contribute something (anything) to the club. They’re on top of nothing but constant failure.

How can you write that? The Club acted and inserted this clause to protect it from a huge payout. It appears a very sensible course of action.

Coach wasn’t the problem before and while it may seem that way to you, its not now. No coach has been given an NRL quality roster by the WT administration since 2011-12.

This dates back to Apr 21. Obviously the Club considered what they knew to be serious enough to include a clause in his contract extension. Smoke, fire, form.

Players get their nose out of joint when you tell them they are not good enough. Wow big surprise. I thought Madge came here to fix the place.

This is not about the players. The Club made the decision to include this mechanism in the contract extension as reported by Chammas.

What mechanisms? Did it say, we expect you to win with a bottom 4 roster or we can sack you and replace you with another poor sucker.

It's the mechanism to end his contract with minor pain in terms of payout as reported by Chammas.

Copy and paste it into our playing contracts and we’ve actually solved a problem.

There is a lot of mud been thrown at our players. Sure they have not always been at their best but the Club's actions indicate there is a known problem, a problem enough to insert a mechanism in the coach's contract.

 

[BAGNF05]

The most pain less option is to exercise the mechanism the club apparently has written into Maguire's contract extension (as reported by Chammas). If true, the WTs were aware of concerns about Maguire's relationships with players since April 21. These concerns were serious enough to have that mechanism included (and thankfully it was written into his extension). Perhaps our Chairman and CEO are on top of this matter? It certainly seems that way.

If only they put clauses into the contracts of former high paid recruits that said they had to contribute something (anything) to the club. They’re on top of nothing but constant failure.

How can you write that? The Club acted and inserted this clause to protect it from a huge payout. It appears a very sensible course of action.

Coach wasn’t the problem before and while it may seem that way to you, its not now. No coach has been given an NRL quality roster by the WT administration since 2011-12.

This dates back to Apr 21. Obviously the Club considered what they knew to be serious enough to include a clause in his contract extension. Smoke, fire, form.

Players get their nose out of joint when you tell them they are not good enough. Wow big surprise. I thought Madge came here to fix the place.

This is not about the players. The Club made the decision to include this mechanism in the contract extension as reported by Chammas.

What mechanisms? Did it say, we expect you to win with a bottom 4 roster or we can sack you and replace you with another poor sucker.

Even a bottom 4 roster can be taught a defensive structure after 3 seasons ..a so called Mechanism was the smartest move the club made to cover there butts as he should never had been given and extension until mid season !

You can give a builder plans but if he doesn’t show up to work………

 

[Demps]

Doesn't change anything.
Thanks for the information @TYGA

Makes complete sense.
The ones that look like they have no idea and the ones with the issue.

Time for some shoulder taps.

 

[pawsandclaws1]

The most pain less option is to exercise the mechanism the club apparently has written into Maguire's contract extension (as reported by Chammas). If true, the WTs were aware of concerns about Maguire's relationships with players since April 21. These concerns were serious enough to have that mechanism included (and thankfully it was written into his extension). Perhaps our Chairman and CEO are on top of this matter? It certainly seems that way.

If only they put clauses into the contracts of former high paid recruits that said they had to contribute something (anything) to the club. They’re on top of nothing but constant failure.

How can you write that? The Club acted and inserted this clause to protect it from a huge payout. It appears a very sensible course of action.

Coach wasn’t the problem before and while it may seem that way to you, its not now. No coach has been given an NRL quality roster by the WT administration since 2011-12.

This dates back to Apr 21. Obviously the Club considered what they knew to be serious enough to include a clause in his contract extension. Smoke, fire, form.

Players get their nose out of joint when you tell them they are not good enough. Wow big surprise. I thought Madge came here to fix the place.

This is not about the players. The Club made the decision to include this mechanism in the contract extension as reported by Chammas.

What mechanisms? Did it say, we expect you to win with a bottom 4 roster or we can sack you and replace you with another poor sucker.

Even a bottom 4 roster can be taught a defensive structure after 3 seasons ..a so called Mechanism was the smartest move the club made to cover there butts as he should never had been given and extension until mid season !

You can give a builder plans but if he doesn’t show up to work………

If the pupils aren't learning, there may be an issue with the teacher.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Doesn't change anything.
Thanks for the information @TYGA

Makes complete sense.
The ones that look like they have no idea and the ones with the issue.

Time for some shoulder taps.

What if Stef or Doueihi is the player that’s in the anti brigade. Do they get tapped on the shoulder too?

 

[Demps]

Doesn't change anything.
Thanks for the information @TYGA

Makes complete sense.
The ones that look like they have no idea and the ones with the issue.

Time for some shoulder taps.

What if Stef or Doueihi is the player that’s in the anti brigade. Do they get tapped on the shoulder too?

No one's bigger than the team.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Doesn't change anything.
Thanks for the information @TYGA

Makes complete sense.
The ones that look like they have no idea and the ones with the issue.

Time for some shoulder taps.

What if Stef or Doueihi is the player that’s in the anti brigade. Do they get tapped on the shoulder too?

No one's bigger than the team.

So that’s a yes?

 

[Demps]

Doesn't change anything.
Thanks for the information @TYGA

Makes complete sense.
The ones that look like they have no idea and the ones with the issue.

Time for some shoulder taps.

What if Stef or Doueihi is the player that’s in the anti brigade. Do they get tapped on the shoulder too?

No one's bigger than the team.

So that’s a yes?

100%

 

[BAGNF05]

The most pain less option is to exercise the mechanism the club apparently has written into Maguire's contract extension (as reported by Chammas). If true, the WTs were aware of concerns about Maguire's relationships with players since April 21. These concerns were serious enough to have that mechanism included (and thankfully it was written into his extension). Perhaps our Chairman and CEO are on top of this matter? It certainly seems that way.

If only they put clauses into the contracts of former high paid recruits that said they had to contribute something (anything) to the club. They’re on top of nothing but constant failure.

How can you write that? The Club acted and inserted this clause to protect it from a huge payout. It appears a very sensible course of action.

Coach wasn’t the problem before and while it may seem that way to you, its not now. No coach has been given an NRL quality roster by the WT administration since 2011-12.

This dates back to Apr 21. Obviously the Club considered what they knew to be serious enough to include a clause in his contract extension. Smoke, fire, form.

Players get their nose out of joint when you tell them they are not good enough. Wow big surprise. I thought Madge came here to fix the place.

This is not about the players. The Club made the decision to include this mechanism in the contract extension as reported by Chammas.

What mechanisms? Did it say, we expect you to win with a bottom 4 roster or we can sack you and replace you with another poor sucker.

Even a bottom 4 roster can be taught a defensive structure after 3 seasons ..a so called Mechanism was the smartest move the club made to cover there butts as he should never had been given and extension until mid season !

You can give a builder plans but if he doesn’t show up to work………

If the pupils aren't learning, there may be an issue with the teacher.

Typical new age rubbish , blame the teacher when little Jonny sets his house on fire.

 

[pawsandclaws1]

The most pain less option is to exercise the mechanism the club apparently has written into Maguire's contract extension (as reported by Chammas). If true, the WTs were aware of concerns about Maguire's relationships with players since April 21. These concerns were serious enough to have that mechanism included (and thankfully it was written into his extension). Perhaps our Chairman and CEO are on top of this matter? It certainly seems that way.

If only they put clauses into the contracts of former high paid recruits that said they had to contribute something (anything) to the club. They’re on top of nothing but constant failure.

How can you write that? The Club acted and inserted this clause to protect it from a huge payout. It appears a very sensible course of action.

Coach wasn’t the problem before and while it may seem that way to you, its not now. No coach has been given an NRL quality roster by the WT administration since 2011-12.

This dates back to Apr 21. Obviously the Club considered what they knew to be serious enough to include a clause in his contract extension. Smoke, fire, form.

Players get their nose out of joint when you tell them they are not good enough. Wow big surprise. I thought Madge came here to fix the place.

This is not about the players. The Club made the decision to include this mechanism in the contract extension as reported by Chammas.

What mechanisms? Did it say, we expect you to win with a bottom 4 roster or we can sack you and replace you with another poor sucker.

Even a bottom 4 roster can be taught a defensive structure after 3 seasons ..a so called Mechanism was the smartest move the club made to cover there butts as he should never had been given and extension until mid season !

You can give a builder plans but if he doesn’t show up to work………

If the pupils aren't learning, there may be an issue with the teacher.

Typical new age rubbish , blame the teacher when little Jonny sets his house on fir

deleted