Signings, Suggestions & Rumours Discussion

[jirskyr]

Any 1 know what’s happening with russel packer? He has to be the worst signing in history

Ah there's another thread this weekend that asserts that in fact Mbye is the worst signing in history.

Nick Graham wasn't a voice in the vote, apparently.

 

[gregjm87]

Why would anyone want to sign here ? Genuine question.

To play first grade and win the comp. It can be turned around pretty easily with quality players. If I was a quality player it'd be really easy for me to sign up to the Tigers. If my son was a quality player I'd push him to sign with the Tigers.

Really? What would draw you to us?

Pretty simple - playing first grade and winning the comp. What is wrong with that ? Honestly I don't see any valid counter argument.

But if other clubs want you aswell? I can see players come here if it's their only choice but that's no choice at all.

agree, its not just an issue for our club but competition wide.
Why are the Storm, Roosters consistently at the top? They get the choice of the elite young talent because those young players know they are walking straight into a strong team. They then also then get their pick of the talent who have been around a while but never won anything as they want to go to a strong team for a shot at a title. Finally, they can generally keep their top players because they have been successful at that club they feel a sense of belonging there.

The lower teams however need to pay massive overs to attract talent. But they are then instantly disadvantaged as their salary cap is now disproportional and can not sign enough elite talent to field a strong team. So they continue to underperform and remain a lower team.

Been saying it for years, the salary cap disadvantages the lower teams because they have to pay overs so the get less bang for their cap

got any solutions?

I have but I have been down this track a million times on this forum and others…basically every club is given 1000 points and every player no matter what you pay them is graded by some means..ie Australian rep,SOO rep, 200 gamer,first year rookie. So all your 30 players are given a grade by the NRL and have to fit within the 1000 points. That ensures you have a level playing field, because at present the playing field is not flat. It would stop teams getting advantages out of TPAs. Anyway not worth debating, because it will not happen. The NRL is controlled by people with self interests

Ive heard this suggested before and it would work to spread talent but the rlpa would not accept it and it would not hold up against a legal battle.
It devalues too many players e.g. Why would anyone want an Origin level outside back if you then have no points left for a spine. Additionally, Moses Mbye, Corey Norman and the Lee's are Origin reps. Who would sign such a player at their increase points level? Furthermore your worth decreases with experience.

Dont mean to shoot down ideas but would love to find one that would work for all parties.

 

[jirskyr]

Instead I’m in a world where broncos and bulldogs fans are messaging me saying “far out I feel sorry for you”

Well your friends are peanuts because we have as many wins as both those clubs combined, as horrid as we are.

But they’re expected to be bad. Not to mention both are in the midst of a major clean out. Both of those teams both had more of a dig against the storm than us


BAD? Broncos are a far better roster than us, almost across the park. I'd swap the Broncos team for ours (bar couple) in a flash. on paper they are far far far better than us, yet need a clean out?

your friends are peanuts, must be Queenslanders

Since 2019 Broncos have won 6 football matches.

 

[InBenjiWeTrust]

Mbye and Nofoaluma need to be moved on ASAP, drop both of them this week, Madden in for Mbye at least he will try his guts out. Jet one last chance on the wing, Tuilagi needs to be promoted in the hope he can soon replace Garner. If Blore is fit he starts, luci to the bench. Simpkin back for Liddle and Tamou to the bench. Seyfarth starts at 13.

Another Liddle hater?:thinking_face:

 

[the_third]

Instead I’m in a world where broncos and bulldogs fans are messaging me saying “far out I feel sorry for you”

Well your friends are peanuts because we have as many wins as both those clubs combined, as horrid as we are.

But they’re expected to be bad. Not to mention both are in the midst of a major clean out. Both of those teams both had more of a dig against the storm than us


BAD? Broncos are a far better roster than us, almost across the park. I'd swap the Broncos team for ours (bar couple) in a flash. on paper they are far far far better than us, yet need a clean out?

your friends are peanuts, must be Queenslanders

Since 2019 Broncos have won 6 football matches.

they have no halves, great forwards and some great backs. its not the reason they are losing. especially last year

 

[jirskyr]

Why would anyone want to sign here ? Genuine question.

To play first grade and win the comp. It can be turned around pretty easily with quality players. If I was a quality player it'd be really easy for me to sign up to the Tigers. If my son was a quality player I'd push him to sign with the Tigers.

Really? What would draw you to us?

Pretty simple - playing first grade and winning the comp. What is wrong with that ? Honestly I don't see any valid counter argument.

But if other clubs want you aswell? I can see players come here if it's their only choice but that's no choice at all.

agree, its not just an issue for our club but competition wide.
Why are the Storm, Roosters consistently at the top? They get the choice of the elite young talent because those young players know they are walking straight into a strong team. They then also then get their pick of the talent who have been around a while but never won anything as they want to go to a strong team for a shot at a title. Finally, they can generally keep their top players because they have been successful at that club they feel a sense of belonging there.

The lower teams however need to pay massive overs to attract talent. But they are then instantly disadvantaged as their salary cap is now disproportional and can not sign enough elite talent to field a strong team. So they continue to underperform and remain a lower team.

Been saying it for years, the salary cap disadvantages the lower teams because they have to pay overs so the get less bang for their cap

got any solutions?

I have but I have been down this track a million times on this forum and others…basically every club is given 1000 points and every player no matter what you pay them is graded by some means..ie Australian rep,SOO rep, 200 gamer,first year rookie. So all your 30 players are given a grade by the NRL and have to fit within the 1000 points. That ensures you have a level playing field, because at present the playing field is not flat. It would stop teams getting advantages out of TPAs. Anyway not worth debating, because it will not happen. The NRL is controlled by people with self interests

Ive heard this suggested before and it would work to spread talent but the rlpa would not accept it and it would not hold up against a legal battle.
It devalues too many players e.g. Why would anyone want an Origin level outside back if you then have no points left for a spine. Additionally, Moses Mbye, Corey Norman and the Lee's are Origin reps. Who would sign such a player at their increase points level? Furthermore your worth decreases with experience.

Dont mean to shoot down ideas but would love to find one that would work for all parties.

It would never work. Instead of arguments about shady deals outside of salary caps, it would be arguments about the NRL's valuation of players (and probably still lead to accusations of cronyism and rigging).

The points suggestion is Fantasy Football, nothing less. Arbitrary numbers of points for random attributes. Does a player get more or less points if he makes more tackles or more tries? Do fast players cost more players? Injury-prone players worth less points?

What happens if NRL introduce a tweak and suddenly the tackle machines are worth more points, and thus impacts their marketability?

You are right that the RLPA would never allow it, because it would probably be restraint of trade - someone arbitrarily impacts your personal earning capacity based on their measurement of you. At the very least, salary cap is a restraint on clubs and directly not on individuals.

And that restraint may even be worse for top-tier players who may be "priced" (points pricing that is) out of contracts because the NRL tells the league that they are too expensive. Players would not be allowed to take pay cuts to stay with a club.

Every time this is brought up I ask the same question - is there a league anywhere in the world, in any sport, that has implemented a points-based cap system? Not even as a smart-alec comment, I truly mean, has it ever happened? I am not aware of one, and if it existed, I'd love to study it.

 

[hobbo1]

Instead I’m in a world where broncos and bulldogs fans are messaging me saying “far out I feel sorry for you”

Well your friends are peanuts because we have as many wins as both those clubs combined, as horrid as we are.

But they’re expected to be bad. Not to mention both are in the midst of a major clean out. Both of those teams both had more of a dig against the storm than us


BAD? Broncos are a far better roster than us, almost across the park. I'd swap the Broncos team for ours (bar couple) in a flash. on paper they are far far far better than us, yet need a clean out?

your friends are peanuts, must be Queenslanders

Since 2019 Broncos have won 6 football matches.

Start of ?

 

[cochise]

Why would anyone want to sign here ? Genuine question.

To play first grade and win the comp. It can be turned around pretty easily with quality players. If I was a quality player it'd be really easy for me to sign up to the Tigers. If my son was a quality player I'd push him to sign with the Tigers.

Really? What would draw you to us?

Pretty simple - playing first grade and winning the comp. What is wrong with that ? Honestly I don't see any valid counter argument.

But if other clubs want you aswell? I can see players come here if it's their only choice but that's no choice at all.

agree, its not just an issue for our club but competition wide.
Why are the Storm, Roosters consistently at the top? They get the choice of the elite young talent because those young players know they are walking straight into a strong team. They then also then get their pick of the talent who have been around a while but never won anything as they want to go to a strong team for a shot at a title. Finally, they can generally keep their top players because they have been successful at that club they feel a sense of belonging there.

The lower teams however need to pay massive overs to attract talent. But they are then instantly disadvantaged as their salary cap is now disproportional and can not sign enough elite talent to field a strong team. So they continue to underperform and remain a lower team.

Been saying it for years, the salary cap disadvantages the lower teams because they have to pay overs so the get less bang for their cap

got any solutions?

I have but I have been down this track a million times on this forum and others…basically every club is given 1000 points and every player no matter what you pay them is graded by some means..ie Australian rep,SOO rep, 200 gamer,first year rookie. So all your 30 players are given a grade by the NRL and have to fit within the 1000 points. That ensures you have a level playing field, because at present the playing field is not flat. It would stop teams getting advantages out of TPAs. Anyway not worth debating, because it will not happen. The NRL is controlled by people with self interests

No that is a terrible way of doing it.

 

[jirskyr]

Instead I’m in a world where broncos and bulldogs fans are messaging me saying “far out I feel sorry for you”

Well your friends are peanuts because we have as many wins as both those clubs combined, as horrid as we are.

But they’re expected to be bad. Not to mention both are in the midst of a major clean out. Both of those teams both had more of a dig against the storm than us


BAD? Broncos are a far better roster than us, almost across the park. I'd swap the Broncos team for ours (bar couple) in a flash. on paper they are far far far better than us, yet need a clean out?

your friends are peanuts, must be Queenslanders

Since 2019 Broncos have won 6 football matches.

Start of ?

No Broncos won 11 matches in 2019, came 8th. Got flogged by Parra Wk 1 of the finals. That was the start of the rot.

 

[BalmainJnr]

I don’t have anything against Lee but he needs to stop being a dial a comment.
For a start, stop talking about which players we are targeting in the media. All it’s done thus far is put egg on our collective faces.

I don't get the problem - they asked Lee about those players, he didn't bring it up. Then he says "yeah we've spoke about them, we are looking for quality players".

I see nothing untoward about that.

I get where you are coming from.
For me, all he needs to say when asked is that he doesn’t comment on internal recruitment targets/discussions.
When has Lee acknowledging targets in the media worked out well for us?

I hardly think that confirming you have considered a player is tantamount to losing out on their signature. You are talking about 2 players here, right? Latrell and JAC. Lee had good reason to mention those players when we were apparently within a hair's breadth of signing both of them. You can't build a trend out of 2.

Because of course, when Lee says nothing at all, Tigers sign 50 elite players.

Thanks for your reply.
I never said confirming we have considered a player was tantamount to losing out on their signature.
While I didn’t flesh it out in my previous post, my point is that I don’t think we need to telegraph our recruitment interests in the media (and in turn to others) and then have any potential contract negotiations speculated about or played out in the media.
It may not lose us a player specifically but I don’t see how it assists negotiations and it could even be potentially disruptive.
Yes, Latrell and JAC were the two specifically spruced by Lee.
To your point about Lee having good reason to mention it because Latrell and JAC were apparently within a hairs breath of signing. Why discuss it publicly (even if you have confidence the deals coming to fruition) when the deal is not yet done? What is to be gained when the deal hasn’t been finalised and could still fall through?
While I might not be able to build a trend out of two, I am still allowed to have an opinion on it.
As for the last line in your post, was it just a parting shot at me?
As I also never stated or inferred that Lee saying nothing at all would result in the Tigers signing 50 elite players.

 

[tigerballs]

Why would anyone want to sign here ? Genuine question.

To play first grade and win the comp. It can be turned around pretty easily with quality players. If I was a quality player it'd be really easy for me to sign up to the Tigers. If my son was a quality player I'd push him to sign with the Tigers.

Really? What would draw you to us?

Pretty simple - playing first grade and winning the comp. What is wrong with that ? Honestly I don't see any valid counter argument.

But if other clubs want you aswell? I can see players come here if it's their only choice but that's no choice at all.

agree, its not just an issue for our club but competition wide.
Why are the Storm, Roosters consistently at the top? They get the choice of the elite young talent because those young players know they are walking straight into a strong team. They then also then get their pick of the talent who have been around a while but never won anything as they want to go to a strong team for a shot at a title. Finally, they can generally keep their top players because they have been successful at that club they feel a sense of belonging there.

The lower teams however need to pay massive overs to attract talent. But they are then instantly disadvantaged as their salary cap is now disproportional and can not sign enough elite talent to field a strong team. So they continue to underperform and remain a lower team.

Been saying it for years, the salary cap disadvantages the lower teams because they have to pay overs so the get less bang for their cap

got any solutions?

I have but I have been down this track a million times on this forum and others…basically every club is given 1000 points and every player no matter what you pay them is graded by some means..ie Australian rep,SOO rep, 200 gamer,first year rookie. So all your 30 players are given a grade by the NRL and have to fit within the 1000 points. That ensures you have a level playing field, because at present the playing field is not flat. It would stop teams getting advantages out of TPAs. Anyway not worth debating, because it will not happen. The NRL is controlled by people with self interests

100% correct. I'd expand on that by making it a dollar value and the market would set the rate, so if one club offers x, another can't offer y and use the old "they want to come here to win a comp so they took less".
I'd also make the initial rookie contract at a club the value of that player until that player decides to go elsewhere, so, for example, Alex Seyfarth would always be valued on the WT cap as say $250k, no matter what WT are actually paying him, but if he chose to leave he would be valued at his new club at market rate. That would encourage clubs to either develop their juniors or scout them very early, rather than just buy the guts out of poorer clubs.
I know this means a club with plenty of good juniors would be actually paying way over the agreed value of their roster, or the salary cap, but the better roster should also attract better sponsorship and TPA's.

 

[gregjm87]

Been saying it for years, the salary cap disadvantages the lower teams because they have to pay overs so the get less bang for their cap

got any solutions?

Well the solution to that comment is handicapping - you get less salary cap to work with the better your results, like they do in horse racing.

Unfortunately totally not implementable with the way football contracts and pre-seasons work.

But I think @supercoach is only looking at half the equation - what chance at all would lower teams have to get any decent players, even at overs, if not for the salary cap forcing top teams to shed them? Teams like Penrith Panthers aren't losing quality players for the fun of it.

You remove the salary cap, you hand the premiership to the top handful of rich clubs who simply build never-ending dynasties based solely upon $$$ and buying everyone's best players. Look at the English Premier League if you want to see what happens in a competition with no true salary cap and no draft system.

That's why Melbourne are so remarkable - can get good consistent results out of even the low-paid players. Then when those players move for bigger contracts, they get upskill the next budget guy.

Agree, with the point that the cap also forces teams to shed players. The only solution i have ever come up with is the same as yours but working the other way; give the bottom teams more cap space for the following 3 years.
e.g.
15th-16th get 15% the following year, 10% year after than 5% the 3rd. Should allow a couple extra signings and the chance to keep them for a little while.
13th-14th get 10%, 7.5% 5%
9th-12th a marquee signing allowance, one signing the following year not included in that years cap (would probably need to put a limit on this but).

The main pushback ive got from this is that people dont like seeing players change clubs (which happens anyway) and encourages tanking at the end of the year. But havent heard any other suggestions.

I just thought of that now, I agree it might work, give the lower sides more. AFL has done it with the new teams for some time, given them allowances until they become competitive?

Only question is how does a team coming last then use that 15% for the following season? Typically the good players are all tied up in the offseason. And if you commit salary cap in anticipation of coming last, but you don't come last, what then?

Yeah definitely needs a lot more 'working' before it would be practical, and im sure there is an altogether different and better option that i havent thought of.
I dont think a club could commit additional cap until it happens. They would be forced to shed players if they did, which would only put them into further strife, performance wise.
For probably the top 10 players they are rarely allowed to come off contract. But there are plenty of quality off contract players every year. I also think players would sign shorter contracts and/or put off signing until seasons end if they believed they were someone another club would value.

Part of me believes there arent enough top tier players (particularly spine players) around too "spread the talent" so any solution is deemed to fail. But, whilst ever we are in a situation where for example arguably the top 3 hookers in the game are all at one club (which was the case for Melbourne the last couple years) then i think we need to keep looking for a solution because the status quo is not working.

 

[jirskyr]

I don’t have anything against Lee but he needs to stop being a dial a comment.
For a start, stop talking about which players we are targeting in the media. All it’s done thus far is put egg on our collective faces.

I don't get the problem - they asked Lee about those players, he didn't bring it up. Then he says "yeah we've spoke about them, we are looking for quality players".

I see nothing untoward about that.

I get where you are coming from.
For me, all he needs to say when asked is that he doesn’t comment on internal recruitment targets/discussions.
When has Lee acknowledging targets in the media worked out well for us?

I hardly think that confirming you have considered a player is tantamount to losing out on their signature. You are talking about 2 players here, right? Latrell and JAC. Lee had good reason to mention those players when we were apparently within a hair's breadth of signing both of them. You can't build a trend out of 2.

Because of course, when Lee says nothing at all, Tigers sign 50 elite players.

Thanks for your reply.
I never said confirming we have considered a player was tantamount to losing out on their signature.
While I didn’t flesh it out in my previous post, my point is that I don’t think we need to telegraph our recruitment interests in the media (and in turn to others) and then have any potential contract negotiations speculated about or played out in the media.
It may not lose us a player specifically but I don’t see how it assists negotiations and it could even be potentially disruptive.
Yes, Latrell and JAC were the two specifically spruced by Lee.
To your point about Lee having good reason to mention it because Latrell and JAC were apparently within a hairs breath of signing. Why discuss it publicly (even if you have confidence the deals coming to fruition) when the deal is not yet done? What is to be gained when the deal hasn’t been finalised and could still fall through?
While I might not be able to build a trend out of two, I am still allowed to have an opinion on it.
As for the last line in your post, was it just a parting shot at me?
As I also never stated or inferred that Lee saying nothing at all would result in the Tigers signing 50 elite players.

Sorry I didn't mean to offend, and I wasn't taking your comments strictly, as in I wasn't putting an argument in your mouth. I was extrapolating your comments. In re-reading it does come across snarky, I apologise.

I think everyone would agree it sounds reasonable to keep 100% of recruitment commentary in-house. However in the case where that does not happen, I don't really believe either that making statements in public has any impact on recruitment. The only impact I believe it has is to annoy certain types of fans who feel embarrassed or over-invested in something because someone from the club mentioned it.

So I don't think Latrell or JAC are an indicator of anything to do with public statements, even if some people felt embarrassed because they ended up elsewhere.

And no my final comment wasn't a parting shot at you, it was to make an argument that Tigers don't sign the top-tier players anytime anywhere, regardless of what Lee says or does not say.

 

[cochise]

Why would anyone want to sign here ? Genuine question.

To play first grade and win the comp. It can be turned around pretty easily with quality players. If I was a quality player it'd be really easy for me to sign up to the Tigers. If my son was a quality player I'd push him to sign with the Tigers.

Really? What would draw you to us?

Pretty simple - playing first grade and winning the comp. What is wrong with that ? Honestly I don't see any valid counter argument.

But if other clubs want you aswell? I can see players come here if it's their only choice but that's no choice at all.

agree, its not just an issue for our club but competition wide.
Why are the Storm, Roosters consistently at the top? They get the choice of the elite young talent because those young players know they are walking straight into a strong team. They then also then get their pick of the talent who have been around a while but never won anything as they want to go to a strong team for a shot at a title. Finally, they can generally keep their top players because they have been successful at that club they feel a sense of belonging there.

The lower teams however need to pay massive overs to attract talent. But they are then instantly disadvantaged as their salary cap is now disproportional and can not sign enough elite talent to field a strong team. So they continue to underperform and remain a lower team.

Been saying it for years, the salary cap disadvantages the lower teams because they have to pay overs so the get less bang for their cap

got any solutions?

I have but I have been down this track a million times on this forum and others…basically every club is given 1000 points and every player no matter what you pay them is graded by some means..ie Australian rep,SOO rep, 200 gamer,first year rookie. So all your 30 players are given a grade by the NRL and have to fit within the 1000 points. That ensures you have a level playing field, because at present the playing field is not flat. It would stop teams getting advantages out of TPAs. Anyway not worth debating, because it will not happen. The NRL is controlled by people with self interests

100% correct. I'd expand on that by making it a dollar value and the market would set the rate, so if one club offers x, another can't offer y and use the old "they want to come here to win a comp so they took less".
I'd also make the initial rookie contract at a club the value of that player until that player decides to go elsewhere, so, for example, Alex Seyfarth would always be valued on the WT cap as say $250k, no matter what WT are actually paying him, but if he chose to leave he would be valued at his new club at market rate. That would encourage clubs to either develop their juniors or scout them very early, rather than just buy the guts out of poorer clubs.
I know this means a club with plenty of good juniors would be actually paying way over the agreed value of their roster, or the salary cap, but the better roster should also attract better sponsorship and TPA's.

I can't agree with that either, players deserve a say in where they play and if they want to take less to play for a team I wouldn't want to prevent that.

I do believe there should be salary cap concessions for long term and developed players larger than there is now but keeping them at their rookie levels goes too far the other way.

 

[Cairnstigers]

Klemmer on the bench today.
Definitely on the way out.

What an unbelievable prop he is. Let’s do this!

Saw him at the barbershop the other day, he was saying he's off to QLD... didn't hear what club exactly but I think it's Broncos. (GUESS)

Was he getting a hair transplant
?

 

[Fainu Brothers]

Plenty of dribble on here. All of us can see Jacob Liddel is not an 80min number 9 and is gassed after 25-30mins and Luciano struggles around the same time. Not sure why we can’t run 2 hookers with Simpkin coming on when Jacob is tired. Luciano needs to go back to the bench. Tamou needs to go. Our most aggressive forward is Seyfarth, he needs to start so he can impact the game before it’s over at 25mins either for Tamou or Joffa. I want us to succeed but Madge needs to get smarter with his use of bench and selections. Like Billy Walters at 6 was a stinker. Tommy Talau shouldn’t play this week, dropping a simple hit up for a try is pathetic. Just my opinion.

 

[tigerballs]

Why would anyone want to sign here ? Genuine question.

To play first grade and win the comp. It can be turned around pretty easily with quality players. If I was a quality player it'd be really easy for me to sign up to the Tigers. If my son was a quality player I'd push him to sign with the Tigers.

Really? What would draw you to us?

Pretty simple - playing first grade and winning the comp. What is wrong with that ? Honestly I don't see any valid counter argument.

But if other clubs want you aswell? I can see players come here if it's their only choice but that's no choice at all.

agree, its not just an issue for our club but competition wide.
Why are the Storm, Roosters consistently at the top? They get the choice of the elite young talent because those young players know they are walking straight into a strong team. They then also then get their pick of the talent who have been around a while but never won anything as they want to go to a strong team for a shot at a title. Finally, they can generally keep their top players because they have been successful at that club they feel a sense of belonging there.

The lower teams however need to pay massive overs to attract talent. But they are then instantly disadvantaged as their salary cap is now disproportional and can not sign enough elite talent to field a strong team. So they continue to underperform and remain a lower team.

Been saying it for years, the salary cap disadvantages the lower teams because they have to pay overs so the get less bang for their cap

got any solutions?

I have but I have been down this track a million times on this forum and others…basically every club is given 1000 points and every player no matter what you pay them is graded by some means..ie Australian rep,SOO rep, 200 gamer,first year rookie. So all your 30 players are given a grade by the NRL and have to fit within the 1000 points. That ensures you have a level playing field, because at present the playing field is not flat. It would stop teams getting advantages out of TPAs. Anyway not worth debating, because it will not happen. The NRL is controlled by people with self interests

100% correct. I'd expand on that by making it a dollar value and the market would set the rate, so if one club offers x, another can't offer y and use the old "they want to come here to win a comp so they took less".
I'd also make the initial rookie contract at a club the value of that player until that player decides to go elsewhere, so, for example, Alex Seyfarth would always be valued on the WT cap as say $250k, no matter what WT are actually paying him, but if he chose to leave he would be valued at his new club at market rate. That would encourage clubs to either develop their juniors or scout them very early, rather than just buy the guts out of poorer clubs.
I know this means a club with plenty of good juniors would be actually paying way over the agreed value of their roster, or the salary cap, but the better roster should also attract better sponsorship and TPA's.

I can't agree with that either, players deserve a say in where they play and if they want to take less to play for a team I wouldn't want to prevent that.

I do believe there should be salary cap concessions for long term and developed players larger than there is now but keeping them at their rookie levels goes too far the other way.

Yep, sorry, I'll clarify:
Players can choose to take less but they should be allocated a true market value as their cost to the clubs cap, otherwise the Roosters still end up with everyone.
I know the rookie contract bit is a bit of a reach, but you get my drift on rewarding junior development and discouraging raiding. Maybe a maximum value of 500k?
If Teddy was going to be a salary cap cost of, say $800k to the Roosters, along with Luke Keary at $800k, JWH at $500, Cooper Cronk $1m, Angus Chricton $800, there's 40% of their cap gone on 5 players. They've got to start pulling their heads in rather than chasing someone else's gun edge to replace Boyd Cordner.

 

[Cairnstigers]

Any 1 know what’s happening with russel packer? He has to be the worst signing in history

It's winter mate
He is staying at home indoors rugged up next to the fire place with his feet up near the flames while cooking marshmallows on a stick and sipping on a nice cup on hot chocolate

 

[BalmainJnr]

I don’t have anything against Lee but he needs to stop being a dial a comment.
For a start, stop talking about which players we are targeting in the media. All it’s done thus far is put egg on our collective faces.

I don't get the problem - they asked Lee about those players, he didn't bring it up. Then he says "yeah we've spoke about them, we are looking for quality players".

I see nothing untoward about that.

I get where you are coming from.
For me, all he needs to say when asked is that he doesn’t comment on internal recruitment targets/discussions.
When has Lee acknowledging targets in the media worked out well for us?

I hardly think that confirming you have considered a player is tantamount to losing out on their signature. You are talking about 2 players here, right? Latrell and JAC. Lee had good reason to mention those players when we were apparently within a hair's breadth of signing both of them. You can't build a trend out of 2.

Because of course, when Lee says nothing at all, Tigers sign 50 elite players.

Thanks for your reply.
I never said confirming we have considered a player was tantamount to losing out on their signature.
While I didn’t flesh it out in my previous post, my point is that I don’t think we need to telegraph our recruitment interests in the media (and in turn to others) and then have any potential contract negotiations speculated about or played out in the media.
It may not lose us a player specifically but I don’t see how it assists negotiations and it could even be potentially disruptive.
Yes, Latrell and JAC were the two specifically spruced by Lee.
To your point about Lee having good reason to mention it because Latrell and JAC were apparently within a hairs breath of signing. Why discuss it publicly (even if you have confidence the deals coming to fruition) when the deal is not yet done? What is to be gained when the deal hasn’t been finalised and could still fall through?
While I might not be able to build a trend out of two, I am still allowed to have an opinion on it.
As for the last line in your post, was it just a parting shot at me?
As I also never stated or inferred that Lee saying nothing at all would result in the Tigers signing 50 elite players.

Sorry I didn't mean to offend, and I wasn't taking your comments strictly, as in I wasn't putting an argument in your mouth. I was extrapolating your comments. In re-reading it does come across snarky, I apologise.

I think everyone would agree it sounds reasonable to keep 100% of recruitment commentary in-house. However in the case where that does not happen, I don't really believe either that making statements in public has any impact on recruitment. The only impact I believe it has is to annoy certain types of fans who feel embarrassed or over-invested in something because someone from the club mentioned it.

So I don't think Latrell or JAC are an indicator of anything to do with public statements, even if some people felt embarrassed because they ended up elsewhere.

And no my final comment wasn't a parting shot at you, it was to make an argument that Tigers don't sign the top-tier players anytime anywhere, regardless of what Lee says or does not say.

Thank you for clarifying, no apology needed.
I think we are atleast in part coming at this from different angles but I appreciate your points.

 

[jirskyr]

Why would anyone want to sign here ? Genuine question.

To play first grade and win the comp. It can be turned around pretty easily with quality players. If I was a quality player it'd be really easy for me to sign up to the Tigers. If my son was a quality player I'd push him to sign with the Tigers.

Really? What would draw you to us?

Pretty simple - playing first grade and winning the comp. What is wrong with that ? Honestly I don't see any valid counter argument.

But if other clubs want you aswell? I can see players come here if it's their only choice but that's no choice at all.

agree, its not just an issue for our club but competition wide.
Why are the Storm, Roosters consistently at the top? They get the choice of the elite young talent because those young players know they are walking straight into a strong team. They then also then get their pick of the talent who have been around a while but never won anything as they want to go to a strong team for a shot at a title. Finally, they can generally keep their top players because they have been successful at that club they feel a sense of belonging there.

The lower teams however need to pay massive overs to attract talent. But they are then instantly disadvantaged as their salary cap is now disproportional and can not sign enough elite talent to field a strong team. So they continue to underperform and remain a lower team.

Been saying it for years, the salary cap disadvantages the lower teams because they have to pay overs so the get less bang for their cap

got any solutions?

I have but I have been down this track a million times on this forum and others…basically every club is given 1000 points and every player no matter what you pay them is graded by some means..ie Australian rep,SOO rep, 200 gamer,first year rookie. So all your 30 players are given a grade by the NRL and have to fit within the 1000 points. That ensures you have a level playing field, because at present the playing field is not flat. It would stop teams getting advantages out of TPAs. Anyway not worth debating, because it will not happen. The NRL is controlled by people with self interests

100% correct. I'd expand on that by making it a dollar value and the market would set the rate, so if one club offers x, another can't offer y and use the old "they want to come here to win a comp so they took less".
I'd also make the initial rookie contract at a club the value of that player until that player decides to go elsewhere, so, for example, Alex Seyfarth would always be valued on the WT cap as say $250k, no matter what WT are actually paying him, but if he chose to leave he would be valued at his new club at market rate. That would encourage clubs to either develop their juniors or scout them very early, rather than just buy the guts out of poorer clubs.
I know this means a club with plenty of good juniors would be actually paying way over the agreed value of their roster, or the salary cap, but the better roster should also attract better sponsorship and TPA's.

I can't agree with that either, players deserve a say in where they play and if they want to take less to play for a team I wouldn't want to prevent that.

I do believe there should be salary cap concessions for long term and developed players larger than there is now but keeping them at their rookie levels goes too far the other way.

Yep, sorry, I'll clarify:
Players can choose to take less but they should be allocated a true market value as their cost to the clubs cap, otherwise the Roosters still end up with everyone.
I know the rookie contract bit is a bit of a reach, but you get my drift on rewarding junior development and discouraging raiding. Maybe a maximum value of 500k?
If Teddy was going to be a salary cap cost of, say $800k to the Roosters, along with Luke Keary at $800k, JWH at $500, Cooper Cronk $1m, Angus Chricton $800, there's 40% of their cap gone on 5 players. They've got to start pulling their heads in rather than chasing someone else's gun edge to replace Boyd Cordner.

Well that's back to the points system proposed earlier - you can earn whatever you please but the NRL would mandate a set value (points, dollars, dollarydoos, emus, whatever) that a club could assign to you.

NRL already does set some market values so you can't register a player for a dollar.