Signings, Suggestions & Rumours Discussion

[jirskyr]

As suggested before, all players should be on a points system. The more valuable a player is the higher the points.

I'll say this every time, and it's not a slight against you, but can anyone please show me a professional league of any sport globally that has a centrally-assigned points cap system in place? Can't work, won't work.

I see no reason why it couldn’t work, but it won’t happen because the people with the power ($) don’t want it.

I don't think it would work, too many variables.


I submitted a paper (upgrades to the current 100 point system) to the Sydney Rugby Union on this a few months ago. I agree it is terribly difficult and will never work unless it is administered appropriately. For fun I used the same method on the Tigers and the Roosters. Very interesting results

What would you base your point allocations on?


Did they play junior football for the club - reduces points
Did they play 1st grade for another club - increases points
Did they play their first grade game at another club - small points increase
Did they play State of Origin - increases points
Did they play for Australia or another tier 1 country - increases points
Did they play play for a 2nd Tier country - increases points
How many games/years have they played for the club - gradually reduces points
Did father or siblings play for the club - reduces points
A marquee allowance for 1-2 players - reduces points
Did they come from another senior sport (rugby/atletics etc) - no point increase
There were others but I can't remember off the top of my head

Thats a few starting ideas - I know there are many issues with this but it was just an attempt to find a workable solution

When I did the comparison between the Tigers and Rooster, the Roosters points were @ double of the Tigers

Points for internationals and origin are extremely problematic. There is also no mechanism in your allocation for differentiating skill level of players.


Yeah my solution for internationals and origin players would a gradual roll back of points. It would depend on how many games they played e.g. 1-5, or 5-10 etc and how long ago they were played. Eg if a player had not played at that level for 4 years no points would be added if it was 2 years it would be 50% point allocation if it was last year it would be 100% points allocation. Skill level of players is really dictated by what grades they have played and how many games also if they have played any rep games.

The problems arise in not all international teams being in the same tier, for example Jason Taumalolo was in the top few players in the game a few years ago but played for a tier 2 nation. What happens when the best player in the world plays for a tier 2 nation and then gets less points based on where he is from? It is an unworkable problem, then if you make all internationals the same a guy like Michael Chee Kam becomes impossible to sign as he is attracting the same points as James Tedesco for playing for Samoa which is a lot easier than playing for Australia.


Absolutely Cochise, as I said its terribly difficult. My approach would not have those 2 guys at the same points levels MCK would be in a second tier team and would only play maybe a handful of games. Tedesco, top tier team and play possibly 20-30 games in his career, hence a significant points difference.
Yes Taumalolo is an outlier hence the problem with this system, this is where the NRL would have discretion to adjust points one way or the other
Anyway, not up to use to resolve this issue - good discussion though, thx

The algorithm would be mind bogglingly confusing. NRL fans would tear their hair out.

 

[jirskyr]

As suggested before, all players should be on a points system. The more valuable a player is the higher the points.

I'll say this every time, and it's not a slight against you, but can anyone please show me a professional league of any sport globally that has a centrally-assigned points cap system in place? Can't work, won't work.

I see no reason why it couldn’t work, but it won’t happen because the people with the power ($) don’t want it.

I don't think it would work, too many variables.


I submitted a paper (upgrades to the current 100 point system) to the Sydney Rugby Union on this a few months ago. I agree it is terribly difficult and will never work unless it is administered appropriately. For fun I used the same method on the Tigers and the Roosters. Very interesting results

What would you base your point allocations on?


Did they play junior football for the club - reduces points
Did they play 1st grade for another club - increases points
Did they play their first grade game at another club - small points increase
Did they play State of Origin - increases points
Did they play for Australia or another tier 1 country - increases points
Did they play play for a 2nd Tier country - increases points
How many games/years have they played for the club - gradually reduces points
Did father or siblings play for the club - reduces points
A marquee allowance for 1-2 players - reduces points
Did they come from another senior sport (rugby/atletics etc) - no point increase
There were others but I can't remember off the top of my head

Thats a few starting ideas - I know there are many issues with this but it was just an attempt to find a workable solution

When I did the comparison between the Tigers and Rooster, the Roosters points were @ double of the Tigers

Points for internationals and origin are extremely problematic. There is also no mechanism in your allocation for differentiating skill level of players.


Yeah my solution for internationals and origin players would a gradual roll back of points. It would depend on how many games they played e.g. 1-5, or 5-10 etc and how long ago they were played. Eg if a player had not played at that level for 4 years no points would be added if it was 2 years it would be 50% point allocation if it was last year it would be 100% points allocation. Skill level of players is really dictated by what grades they have played and how many games also if they have played any rep games.



For me. I would drop TPAs. Allocate the salary to each team and have an additional fund which is given to the bottom 3 teams go help them get up the ladder. Similar to nfl getting the draft pick order.
Sure there may be some teams who tank but it's more fair than the TPA system we have now

How can you stop players earning money from their own intellectual property..

Door Dash doesn't pay James Tedesco to run down the street because he plays for the Rorters.. they pay him because he's James Tedesco..

Though I wouldn't be surprised at all if the Door Dash CEO is a diehard Roosters fan.

 

[Russell]

Lot of moving parts with Hodgson recruitment..
We wish to pay only $500k for a player Raiders have on their books for $900k,plus we'd like them to take Liddle for full ask of $300k
On top of that,Raiders are awaiting the january outcome of their court case for their sole alternative at 9...
As each month goes by,the maths get friendlier for WTs as Hodgson is being paid $75k monthly by Raiders from Nov1,whereas we we pay Liddle $24k or so...

If you don't mind, could you please post Tigers official word that they want to Canberra to take Liddle for full freight or that they want Canberra to take him at all. Has Liddle agreed to terminate his 2 year contract with the Tigers? Has Liddle agreed that he wants to leave and go to Canberra?

Sounds like it is made up to me.

 

[supercoach]

What you have to remember is, the NRL can not govern the Salary cap, so it is fair to assume what ever system is in place they will stuff that up to.

Also what ever system you have In place you need to have players willing to join your club and at present we struggle to attract anyone other than 16 year old potential Flegg players and over 30 players looking for their last contract.

 

[barnzee]

From what I have heard both Liddle and Simpkin have been told they are both staying with the tigers , but its hard too see all three of them sticking around , I think one of liddle or Simpkin will move on .

 

[happy_tiger]

I can only wish the roosters are enticing players with money, but I think the uncomfortable truth is that players are going there to be successful and sacrificing the money. If this generation values winning over money, our hill gets even steeper to climb, Ryan Matterson was on $180K at the chooks . When his upgrade request got leaked, whilst a WT. Many started to entertain the notion of the roosters actually being under the cap.

The Roosters are NEVER under the salary cap.This cr3p about players playing for unders "just to be at the Roosters" is a Politus inspired myth .Just because payments dont show up on the books, dont think for a second players are not receiving delayed payments for years after they retire from third parties, supposedly at arms length from the club.

1000 % Agree this happens..
Even retired players joke about it yet we get done for offering Farah a job AFTER footy when he was also leaving our club..
I've said it for years now but all payment should be paid through NRL and TPA need to be scrapped or heavily looked at by NRL.. Unfortunately the NRL have no balls to fix it

That doesn’t stop lumps of cash handed out

As suggested before, all players should be on a points system. The more valuable a player is the higher the points.All clubs can pay players what they want , however they can only spend the same amount of points. If a player is a local junior, you get a discount . If a players is a local junior and stays with the club 10 years , you get a discount. If you buy a player that was a junior at another club, you never can get these discounts, not matter how long he stays. The beauty of this system is it would stop the likes of the Rorters waiting for all the other clubs(like the Tigers ) spending the time developing these kids just to have them "stolen " with more money. For one thing , clubs like the Rorters would be forced to develop their own juniors and Uncle Nicks paper bags would be rendered redundant in buying any more premierships.


That is so obvious and makes perfect sense, but it would mean teams like the Roosters and Broncos would no longer hold an advantage, so there’s no chance of it happening.

Absolutely wrong. Rich clubs would stockpile junior talent with minimal concern of points cost, then just discard the droves of kids who dont work out.

Broncos could do that at the moment

Brisbane's problem is the aren't keeping the right juniors

 

[Tiger_Fanatic3]

From what I have heard both Liddle and Simpkin have been told they are both staying with the tigers , but its hard too see all three of them sticking around , I think one of liddle or Simpkin will move on .

It will be one of the 2. We won't need 3 hookers. Liddle to be moved on.
Simpkin only still young, Hodgson will be a great mentor.

 

[jirskyr]

As suggested before, all players should be on a points system. The more valuable a player is the higher the points.

I'll say this every time, and it's not a slight against you, but can anyone please show me a professional league of any sport globally that has a centrally-assigned points cap system in place? Can't work, won't work.

100% this. The whole idea is a complete non-starter. All it does is distort player cost, not "fix" it. Depending on how the points are assigned, it would likely be a disaster for solid first graders who happen to have played a game or two of rep football and are now given rep-level points, while wildly overvaluing unproven talent. Instead of allowing clubs to keep the players they have developed, it would force them into Joseph Suaalii style bidding wars over "next big thing" talent that has a very low points score.

Every time I get into a conversation with a points system advicate they have to tweak the system in response to every problem.

What about players who get international caps for second tier nations - would they carry the same points weighting as Australia internationals? *Oh no, it would be half.* So teams would be incentivised to sign Tongan and Kiwi players rather than Australians - how would that go down? *Oh no, Tonga and NZ are good now, so they would have full weighting.* So some guy who plays a couple of games off the bench for Tonga has the same weighting as an Australian international? *It could be based on number of games played.* But some international teams play more than others.

And so it goes on, until they end up saying actually there would just be a panel of judges who decide how many points to assign everyone. Which basically turns roster construction into "are you a better judge of talent than Gorden Tallis, Neil Henry and Braith Anasta". There's no way any system that relies on external judgement of talent is going to work.

I understand some of the concerns. As many of our fellow Tigers fans have mentioned it wouldnt be easy & I dont profess to have all the answers. But what about a "price" points system that the market decides. Let me illustrate.
Lets take Suaali for example. Souths are willing to pay 300k for him so he is worth 30 points. But the Rorters come along & say we will pay him 500k , so his point score goes up to 50 points. However Souths get him for a 50% points discount (ie 25 points because he was developed by them). So Souths now say we will offer you 600k knowing that it will only cost them 30 points . As all NRL sides have the same points, sides like the Rorters would be hesitant using a large amount of points on an unproven players.
This same principle applies to all players. The "price" points system is very similar to how the salary cap works now but actually acts as a transparent public salary cap, rather than the "one payment on the books plus paperbags" with the existing salary cap.
For example , The Warriors offer Manu 950k but he signed with the Rorters for supposedly 750k ( with paperbags) , it will still cost the Rorters 95 points because that was the highest offer.

All contracts & offers have to be lodged with NRL & once lodged are binding on the club if the player decides to accept them so that would stop clubs trying to intentionally inflate the points price of players by submitting bogus offers. If a club does withdraw the offer after it has been accepted they would have to subsidize the difference of what they offered & what the player actually signed for at another club. On top of this , they would lose the difference of the price points between the 2 offers.
Any thoughts?

I don't mind it, I just think is not needed if you allow for proper concessions for developed and long serving players, which you have actually done as well.

So you clear your points cap, lodge contracts for Ponga, Taumololo, Payne Haas, and simply by the fact you lodged a contract, even if the player had zero interest in your club, you compel his current club to increase points spent at no cost to yourself, because if the player accepts your contract you have just trumped his incumbent for an elite player.

And you use it tactically. E.g. Rabbits lose the GF, releasing Reynolds to Broncos, the very next day they make an offer to Nathan Cleary, dragging up his points price and immediately putting the premiers under cap burden.

 

[jirskyr]

I think publicising the NRL salaries across the board would eliminate or lessen a lot of the issues fans have with the current salary cap.


Of course it would but the NRL would have no interest in everyone to see just how incompetent they are and what they allow in a so called "equal" environment

Got nothing to do with the NRL, it's the RLPA who refuse to allow it. They don't want players copping abuse if they're on good money and not performing


It is the NRL who misadminister the salary cap and allow players to play at lower wages (supposedly) at certain clubs while letting them have payments from elsewhere not under the salary cap.Most supporters would have more respect if the NRL admitted they knew certain clubs are cheating but they are unable to catch them.
The NRL are incompetent at best.

If the NRL are incompetent then why would it matter which system we had, the incompetence would still persist.

The reality is clubs are highly incentivised to game every system placed in front of them, and find loopholes. And because there is no perfect system, the governing body could never truly stamp out cheats and rorts. Hasn't happened in any sporting, political or cultural body in existence.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

From what I have heard both Liddle and Simpkin have been told they are both staying with the tigers , but its hard too see all three of them sticking around , I think one of liddle or Simpkin will move on .


It will be one of the 2. We won't need 3 hookers. Liddle to be moved on.
Simpkin only still young, Hodgson will be a great mentor.

What info do you have that supports this?

 

[cochise]

As suggested before, all players should be on a points system. The more valuable a player is the higher the points.

I'll say this every time, and it's not a slight against you, but can anyone please show me a professional league of any sport globally that has a centrally-assigned points cap system in place? Can't work, won't work.

100% this. The whole idea is a complete non-starter. All it does is distort player cost, not "fix" it. Depending on how the points are assigned, it would likely be a disaster for solid first graders who happen to have played a game or two of rep football and are now given rep-level points, while wildly overvaluing unproven talent. Instead of allowing clubs to keep the players they have developed, it would force them into Joseph Suaalii style bidding wars over "next big thing" talent that has a very low points score.

Every time I get into a conversation with a points system advicate they have to tweak the system in response to every problem.

What about players who get international caps for second tier nations - would they carry the same points weighting as Australia internationals? *Oh no, it would be half.* So teams would be incentivised to sign Tongan and Kiwi players rather than Australians - how would that go down? *Oh no, Tonga and NZ are good now, so they would have full weighting.* So some guy who plays a couple of games off the bench for Tonga has the same weighting as an Australian international? *It could be based on number of games played.* But some international teams play more than others.

And so it goes on, until they end up saying actually there would just be a panel of judges who decide how many points to assign everyone. Which basically turns roster construction into "are you a better judge of talent than Gorden Tallis, Neil Henry and Braith Anasta". There's no way any system that relies on external judgement of talent is going to work.

I understand some of the concerns. As many of our fellow Tigers fans have mentioned it wouldnt be easy & I dont profess to have all the answers. But what about a "price" points system that the market decides. Let me illustrate.
Lets take Suaali for example. Souths are willing to pay 300k for him so he is worth 30 points. But the Rorters come along & say we will pay him 500k , so his point score goes up to 50 points. However Souths get him for a 50% points discount (ie 25 points because he was developed by them). So Souths now say we will offer you 600k knowing that it will only cost them 30 points . As all NRL sides have the same points, sides like the Rorters would be hesitant using a large amount of points on an unproven players.
This same principle applies to all players. The "price" points system is very similar to how the salary cap works now but actually acts as a transparent public salary cap, rather than the "one payment on the books plus paperbags" with the existing salary cap.
For example , The Warriors offer Manu 950k but he signed with the Rorters for supposedly 750k ( with paperbags) , it will still cost the Rorters 95 points because that was the highest offer.

All contracts & offers have to be lodged with NRL & once lodged are binding on the club if the player decides to accept them so that would stop clubs trying to intentionally inflate the points price of players by submitting bogus offers. If a club does withdraw the offer after it has been accepted they would have to subsidize the difference of what they offered & what the player actually signed for at another club. On top of this , they would lose the difference of the price points between the 2 offers.
Any thoughts?

I don't mind it, I just think is not needed if you allow for proper concessions for developed and long serving players, which you have actually done as well.

So you clear your points cap, lodge contracts for Ponga, Taumololo, Payne Haas, and simply by the fact you lodged a contract, even if the player had zero interest in your club, you compel his current club to increase points spent at no cost to yourself, because if the player accepts your contract you have just trumped his incumbent for an elite player.

And you use it tactically. E.g. Rabbits lose the GF, releasing Reynolds to Broncos, the very next day they make an offer to Nathan Cleary, dragging up his points price and immediately putting the premiers under cap burden.

Yeah, that is the problem I have with it as I don't agree with other clubs setting the value for players.

As I have set many times the best system is a salary cap with proper developed and long serving player allowances.

 

[jirskyr]

As suggested before, all players should be on a points system. The more valuable a player is the higher the points.

I'll say this every time, and it's not a slight against you, but can anyone please show me a professional league of any sport globally that has a centrally-assigned points cap system in place? Can't work, won't work.

100% this. The whole idea is a complete non-starter. All it does is distort player cost, not "fix" it. Depending on how the points are assigned, it would likely be a disaster for solid first graders who happen to have played a game or two of rep football and are now given rep-level points, while wildly overvaluing unproven talent. Instead of allowing clubs to keep the players they have developed, it would force them into Joseph Suaalii style bidding wars over "next big thing" talent that has a very low points score.

Every time I get into a conversation with a points system advicate they have to tweak the system in response to every problem.

What about players who get international caps for second tier nations - would they carry the same points weighting as Australia internationals? *Oh no, it would be half.* So teams would be incentivised to sign Tongan and Kiwi players rather than Australians - how would that go down? *Oh no, Tonga and NZ are good now, so they would have full weighting.* So some guy who plays a couple of games off the bench for Tonga has the same weighting as an Australian international? *It could be based on number of games played.* But some international teams play more than others.

And so it goes on, until they end up saying actually there would just be a panel of judges who decide how many points to assign everyone. Which basically turns roster construction into "are you a better judge of talent than Gorden Tallis, Neil Henry and Braith Anasta". There's no way any system that relies on external judgement of talent is going to work.

I understand some of the concerns. As many of our fellow Tigers fans have mentioned it wouldnt be easy & I dont profess to have all the answers. But what about a "price" points system that the market decides. Let me illustrate.
Lets take Suaali for example. Souths are willing to pay 300k for him so he is worth 30 points. But the Rorters come along & say we will pay him 500k , so his point score goes up to 50 points. However Souths get him for a 50% points discount (ie 25 points because he was developed by them). So Souths now say we will offer you 600k knowing that it will only cost them 30 points . As all NRL sides have the same points, sides like the Rorters would be hesitant using a large amount of points on an unproven players.
This same principle applies to all players. The "price" points system is very similar to how the salary cap works now but actually acts as a transparent public salary cap, rather than the "one payment on the books plus paperbags" with the existing salary cap.
For example , The Warriors offer Manu 950k but he signed with the Rorters for supposedly 750k ( with paperbags) , it will still cost the Rorters 95 points because that was the highest offer.

All contracts & offers have to be lodged with NRL & once lodged are binding on the club if the player decides to accept them so that would stop clubs trying to intentionally inflate the points price of players by submitting bogus offers. If a club does withdraw the offer after it has been accepted they would have to subsidize the difference of what they offered & what the player actually signed for at another club. On top of this , they would lose the difference of the price points between the 2 offers off their salary cap points for the lentgh of the contract they offered.

Any thoughts?

At first glance, it's a better idea than others I've heard. I'm thinking aloud here but the first questions I'd want answered are:
- Is it fair to make one team pay, even in points, for another club's stupid contract offer? I guess this happens anyway - the whole buyer's remorse thing. But if the Roosters genuinely have built a team culture players want to be a part of, even at a discount, should they be penalised because no hopers like the Warriors can only throw money at the situation?
- How would the system account for length of contract? I guess average annual value, but players often prefer to take smaller deals with the certainty of longer duration. Again, if some dumb club has to offer stupid contract years to attract talent is it fair effectively to make smart ones match it or be penalised?
- What happens when clubs are negotiating with multiple players at the same time? You'd have to assume the Tigers would be at least interested in more or less any player on the market now, and could in theory make offers to several players knowing they aren't likely to get all of them (and if they absolutely had to could withdraw an offer). If the whole transfer system became a chain, where club A can't offer player Y a contract until player X has made a decision, it would get horribly snarled up.

As I say, just thinking aloud. It's an interesting idea.

There are problems with any system you initially introduce, but a points system automatically stops rorting imo.

It’s got to be open and transparent for everyone to see it, though you would probably need a doctorate in mathematics to understand it? But it would spread the talent which is what is wanted by most people?

I think it’s fair to say the current system is deeply flawed and needs to be changed or tightened up considerably.

There is just no fair way to do it, honestly the best system is a salary cap with strong developed and long serving player allowances.

That’s mostly what we have now, it’s not working because clubs are abusing it and cheating it. IMO, development allowance won’t stop non-developing clubs one bit, it will just be part of there costs?

You can’t heat a point valued system.

Of course you can heat a point value system, and you could bet your bottom dollar that some (all) clubs would lobby the NRL to grant exemptions or tweaks to suit their particular needs. There would be endless cases submitted for why Club X should be allowed a variation because of some particular circumstance.

For example this talk of offering points discounts for juniors. Well, what is a junior? Under 18? Under 16? Under 14? Under 12?

Let's say it's any kid playing in your system at the age of 14. OK so Kid X plays in the North Sydney district at 14, which makes him a Norths feeder, but they have no NRL team, so he becomes potentially a Roosters junior by default. So maybe the rich clubs buy-up formalised associations with vast numbers of junior clubs, particularly in the bush, to route the potential of their junior base.

Kid X's family moves to Brisbane when he's 15 and he plays in Brisbane and is eligible for Broncos, but the Broncos are dis-incentivised to develop Kid X because they know he's technically a Roosters junior, and Roosters will be eligible for a discount if the kid hits grade.

And what the Roosters do is they scour the country and pay big bucks for every potential 13 year old, bringing them to Sydney to play in the Roosters junior district, so they have a tremendous cap-free base of kids to choose from and receive automatic discounts. Potentially they have a team of star players all discounted because they hit the Roosters junior ranks at the appropriate age.

And the Roosters heavily lobby the NRL to gerrymander the junior district borders because they are disadvantaged by the their geography and the changing Sydney demographics since the club was founded in 1908. Furthermore Roosters formalise lucrative feeder deals with very many non-aligned junior bases - the odd Sydney base, the regional centres without an NRL side, the country towns.

 

[isaaktigers]

I wouldn’t mind getting Hodgson now.

Before I was pretty against it, but if he’s gone through all the appropriate tests to determine he’s fit and the price is right, then let’s sign him up 👍🏼

At the moment I believe that all teams know is that our nines are feeding the ball to our play makers, while Hodgson has a running/kicking game.

Yeah, I like Liddle in bursts, but this year I feel like he was pretty gassed after the 65th minute, Madge should have taken him off and put Simpkin on - but obviously we didn’t have him on the bench.

 

[jirskyr]

I would imagine the NRL would have a value on that player for a year, (if he ends up more points during the year, because he got his first SOO call up, then it would need to be accounted for the following season, if he stays at the same club, e.g. you wouldn’t expect to have a player sacked, because someone got selected all of a sudden to SOO that season, I think) but if a player moves on (mid season) then you need to find a player available of similar value, but you can’t go over?

This is literally what fantasy football is - arbitrary centralised points capping. Imagine trying to set and police player wages and opportunities based on fantasy football. There would be endless scandal and debate about the way points are assigned and the endless individual variations of certain players who could cost a lot or hardly anything based on some wrinkle in the system.

 

[happy_tiger]

I would imagine the NRL would have a value on that player for a year, (if he ends up more points during the year, because he got his first SOO call up, then it would need to be accounted for the following season, if he stays at the same club, e.g. you wouldn’t expect to have a player sacked, because someone got selected all of a sudden to SOO that season, I think) but if a player moves on (mid season) then you need to find a player available of similar value, but you can’t go over?


This is literally what fantasy football is - arbitrary centralised points capping. Imagine trying to set and police player wages and opportunities based on fantasy football. There would be endless scandal and debate about the way points are assigned and the endless individual variations of certain players who could cost a lot or hardly anything based on some wrinkle in the system.

I'm for the points system , but ti would take heaps of work

Rugby Union players wanting to join NRL ...would happens with their points .....ESL players ......

 

[Shooter Mcgavin]

Going back to the Pom’s update a few days back.

Farnworth would be great, a future top level centre I reckon. Kicks goals, is elusive and good for a tackle bust or two. Good X factor and strike out wide.

With a juicy offer we could maybe pull him away from Broncos where he is competing with Cobbo, Niu, Staggs, Arthurs, Isaako + Oates/Pereira/Lee/Mead for spots in the back 5.

 

[happy_tiger]

Going back to the Pom’s update a few days back.

Farnworth would be great, a future top level centre I reckon. Kicks goals, is elusive and good for a tackle bust or two. Good X factor and strike out wide.

With a juicy offer we could maybe pull him away from Broncos where he is competing with Cobbo, Niu, Staggs, Arthurs, Isaako + Oates/Pereira/Lee/Mead for spots in the back 5.

Worst case ...and assuming the Broncos keep their agreement with Staggs to play 6 he is worst case the 3rd best and his position isn't under question

But agree ...I'm a fan of Farnsworth .....

 

[pawsandclaws1]

Going back to the Pom’s update a few days back.

Farnworth would be great, a future top level centre I reckon. Kicks goals, is elusive and good for a tackle bust or two. Good X factor and strike out wide.

With a juicy offer we could maybe pull him away from Broncos where he is competing with Cobbo, Niu, Staggs, Arthurs, Isaako + Oates/Pereira/Lee/Mead for spots in the back 5.

He's a good player but with a new Brisbane team in the comp he can take his pick. Relocating to Sydney may not be all that attractive to him.

 

[Tiger_Fanatic3]

From what I have heard both Liddle and Simpkin have been told they are both staying with the tigers , but its hard too see all three of them sticking around , I think one of liddle or Simpkin will move on .


It will be one of the 2. We won't need 3 hookers. Liddle to be moved on.
Simpkin only still young, Hodgson will be a great mentor.

What info do you have that supports this?

What info does @barnzee have that supports this??

 

[GNR4LIFE]

From what I have heard both Liddle and Simpkin have been told they are both staying with the tigers , but its hard too see all three of them sticking around , I think one of liddle or Simpkin will move on .


It will be one of the 2. We won't need 3 hookers. Liddle to be moved on.
Simpkin only still young, Hodgson will be a great mentor.

What info do you have that supports this?


What info does @barnzee have that supports this??

He seems to be going off info. You seem to be going off opinion.