As for players & loyalty- when was the last player to sign for less because of 'loyalty'?
The game is now a profession. These guys are paid to play.And like in any business, they can take it to whoever will pay them- and across the NRL & Super League, they do.
Loyalty doesn't exist. It's a barely recognisable consideration in modern football. And fans only ever use it to support keeping players & forget all about it when it comes to poaching from other teams.
No doubt, in time, the Tigers will have to either pay up big to keep Tapou, Brooks, Moses, Tedesco etc- or they will play elsewhere. But it will have very, very little to do with 'loyalty'.
Loyality may be dead to you but I dont think you can speak on behalf of the players. Why on earth do you think Tedesco stayed??? Brooks, Tedesco, Moses. and Woods have all been approached by other clubs and chose to stay - with a club that they are attached to - all have spoken about how they feel about the club. Thank god they did because cant see anyone else lining up to come here. Taylor and co can talk all they like about changing culture and mixing with the likes of the Roosters and the big boys but the reality is we dont have the CAPITAL to do that - and until we do the culture of this club is to look after our own or someone else will. It makes me laugh when people think that letting Farah go is going to change anything, other than to weaken our roster and strengthen someone elses. To pay Farah to play somewhere else and lose a quality player without replacing him does my head in. Agree to disagree.
No need to get upset about it mate.
Why did Tedesco stay? How much are the Tigers paying him now? Yes, there will be the odd occasion where 'wanting' to play somewhere will come into it. Probably when the difference between one contract value & another are negligable. I can imagine that Brooks, Moses & Woods are paid quite well for their level of play to stay at the Tigers. Just as I imagine when their contract runs out the Tigers will need to up the money to them, or someone else will.
At no point have I said the Tigers will be 'better' without Robbie Farah in the short term. This is, I think, where the "Robbie supporters" are getting it wrong. Removing Robbie Farah does not immediately fix the problems at the Tigers. But, for the lack of a better way to put it, long term this club needs a change in mindset that I'm not sure that the Sheens Era players can adapt.
All sporting teams, in time, go through a clean-out. The Tigers have taken a while to get to that, but it seems Taylor is prepared to fast track that by 'bravely' removing players from the club that may not fit, long term, in what the club is trying to do 'culture wise'.
Sometimes, you just need to start fresh, or there will always be a lingering issue around the place. This club has had this issue for a NUMBER of years. It's not just in Potter & Taylor's time. this goes back to when the Tigers dropped off after 2005\. Tim Sheens & Co did a fantastic job of building a tem to win 2005\. They also did a poor job of realising that they couldn't sustain that level of play with the players they retained. They tried to be the 2005 Tigers after Scott Prince left- and could never, ever replicate that. moves like this should have come years ago. Potter sounds like he tried to do it to a degree.
Taylor has, in fact, done it since he came in.