Yep that's the major issue at this stage.
He'd have to have a spell in reserves at the position to get up to speed and realistically an offseason too. Probably wouldn't be an 80 minute player but maybe coming off the bench would suit too as our 14.
Roster Breakdown: 2023-2027
- Thread starter KingRobbie
- Start date
He'd have to have a spell in reserves at the position to get up to speed and realistically an offseason too. Probably wouldn't be an 80 minute player but maybe coming off the bench would suit too as our 14.
BlackWhiteGold
Well-known member
I'm for it for all these reasons. He can learn the intricacies of it in NSW Cup this season rotating with Matamua & build hit fitness base and strength in the gym.
I think Tim or Benji need to sit down with him & tell him for the longevity of his career at this club, his future lies as a ball-playing lock.
earl
Well-known member
What gives you the impression he'll make it as a ball playing lock ? I don't see it. He isn't a hard worker. Valentine Holmes isn't a hard worker either. They moved Holmes to centre and he is doing pretty good there.
I think Doueihi is an edge backrower and you could probably play him at centre because the roles are similar for a small period of time but I can't see him making it as a centre as well because he is slow.
I agree that the club needs to find a position he can build from though and learn that role in reserves.
I think it's mostly his fault he is performing so poorly but the club should really be focusing on trying to get him performing.
Tigertilidie32
Active member
Yep well said he has no confidence in his knee,taking away his confidence in game. Has been a lot better in years past unfortunately so it's not like he doesn't know what to do , just seems to have the Yips atm poor bastard.
Original post edited to include Bula until ‘25.
Tiger Stripes
Well-known member
I had Api down for a option for 2025? Who's favour?
And Matamua contracted for 2025 as well?
Yeah, I haven't included options there just to make it less confusing and messy.
But, Api and the club have a Mutual Option for 2025, same as Stefano.
Tumeth has a Player Option for 2025, Klemmer and the club have a Mutual Option for 2026, and there's a Club Option on Matamua for 2025.
crazycat
Well-known member
I am trying to work out what's the point of Mutual options...
A players option makes sense. A club option isn't that useful because if a player doesn't want to be here they will just tank...
a Mutual "hey we both agree so lets just do another contract year..." I don't understand why, at all.
Pretty sure a mutual option can be triggered by either party - works for a busted player no one wants, and is there a leverage for a lay by toward renegotiating when looking for an upgrade or more years from the club with a player they’d like to keep
twentyforty
Well-known member
If that were the case then would there ever be a need for player or club options?
No, I think a mutual option needs both parties to agree for the contract to continue in whatever form, unlike the other 2 options, which are probably stronger? Mutual Option = Mutual Agreement.
Would be interesting to know how many of these contracts have been ratified by the NRL?
This was my understanding too.
Red88_Tiger
Well-known member
I can only assume it is a way of reducing paperwork and submissions to nrl.
uppatigers
New member
If we do resign doueihi i hope we don't overpay him, I gotta be the only tigers supporter in the whole fanbase that doesn't rate him as highly as everyone else does.
It works opposite to your reasoning, If club and player are living in a world where they're both happy
- Then it doesn't need an option, It's just another contract or an extension.... Which happens more often than 'Mutual options' are ever actioned.
I can appreciate that's what you think (I've asked the question multiple times - to make sure I have it right)
- But the following came from the lips of a Football Manager at another club last week....
If the club is happy with the deal (Getting value for money) and want's to trigger it - They can,
And the Player is bound to it.
If the Player is playing like a busted and getting overpaid, He can trigger it and the club has to wear it....
If neither is happy, ie: the club thinks they're overpaying - Or the player thinks he's underpaid...
It might result in no one triggering it.
But a 'Mutual Option' is the option that can can be be triggered by either party...
Not both - Either.
The Mutual Option gives both player and club a bit of a buffer....
It's not uncommon for players to get big injuries or find a lack of preferred suitors throughout their career,
So the extra year (Should they wish to take it up) gives them a bit of safety (An extra year there if I get stuck)....
Same for the club, If they're overpaying a bit in the first 2 years (Or paying on potential)
And that potential is realised, They have the mutual option available to them to take advantage of the risk they took, At what might be considered unders by the time the option is up.
Like you say, All contracts and performances are open to a week to week negotiation...
But that's the black and white of it.
You would find that if club and player are both happy and terms are met to extend, That's what they do... A new contract.
That's why the Mutual Option is rarely actioned, Usually none or both are happy and new terms are met for a deal moving forward - Or the player simply moves on.
earl
Well-known member
Mate - anyone who has watched him the last couple of years doesn't rate him. I was his no 1 fan. It sucks when a player you like or rate just doesn't deliver.
twentyforty
Well-known member
You're saying that the option itself is "mutual" not the outcome?
Sorry, but that doesn't seem logical to me. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen the way you describe it, but without looking at an NRL contract with a MO, I am finding it hard to believe that that is the intended purpose of the MO clause.
He is already signed until the end of 2024 thanks to Sheens and i doubt if anyone at the club would be crazy enough to give him another contract after this unless he makes a brilliant comeback on the field next year.After 3 ACL's on the same knee it will be very difficult for him to have the confidence to make a return to the game
No - I'm saying both parties have the same right to trigger the option....
The outcome is not (Or doesn't particularly have to be) A player might want to go and the club wants him to stay... Or vise versa.
A player option doesn't guarantee the club an option on the player moving forward
A club option guarantee the player any option from the club moving forward
A mutual option guarantees both the club and player have an option on or at each other moving forward.
Contracts are contracts
- Some work better for the Player, Others work better for the club....
I don't get what you don't get, I can't explain it any other way here and now.
You're saying you don't know what the purpose of a mutual option clause is - I'm explaining to you what it is,
And you find it hard to believe (Despite not knowing what it is)?
That's how it works, Make of it what you're able...
twentyforty
Well-known member
I must have misunderstood your meaning of..
“If the club is happy with the deal (Getting value for money) and want's to trigger it - They can,
And the Player is bound to it.
If the Player is playing like a busted and getting overpaid, He can trigger it and the club has to wear it....”
😁
