Signings, Suggestions & Rumours Discussion

[Cultured_Bogan]

Manly just dusted the Titan 56 to 24, these blowouts are becoming common, aren’t they?

Worst thing that happened to the Schoolies was half time by the looks of it.

 

[sleeve]

One of the biggest problems with this side, aside from rediculous team selections, and bench rotation ,is speed, or more importantly our lack of it. We won a title with it.
To my mind it is a basic requirment, their only a very few can excel without it. We have kept buying players without it, eg; Momo, AD, TT, JL, our new winger,and the cup side has a few in the backs as well. How many of these players ever ran more then 15 mtrs in a game? How many top sides carry slow players? Speed and aggresion in the forwards, thats what wins games.

 

[Elderslie_Tiger]

Yes sorry Talau should be dropped as well, Cini,Hoffman or cooper given a shot

One under the Radar is the centre Pauga he was named.ed in the squad and got down to him and MCK as 18 th man he could be chance for a call up

 

[Spartan117]

Too many excuses.

**Line speed in defence is an Effort and Attitude thing**.

 

[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.

That’s fine we all have our own ideas, someone asked me what was my solution. So what is yours??? Or is the current system ok

I don't think there is a better system we could implement outside of centralised contracts and payments

 

[the_third]

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.

That’s fine we all have our own ideas, someone asked me what was my solution. So what is yours??? Or is the current system ok

I don't think there is a better system we could implement outside of centralised contracts and payments

centralised contacts are the way to go

 

[TigerWest]

Yes sorry Talau should be dropped as well, Cini,Hoffman or cooper given a shot

Cooper for mine. We need improvements in defence and I reckon he’s got it

He doesn't. His front on defence is solid but he's a winger, not a front rower. Only makes 4-5 tackles a game.

His issue is reading the game, being out of position and rushing in unnecessarily. He's like a much much slower version of Roberts

Fair enough I agree he’s slower than Roberts but from what I’ve seen he’s a much better defender. I guess the question is can we keep Roberts in the centre position, my answer is definitely not after watching him Saturday

I think there are a lot of positions up for grabs ATM.

TBH, I thought the forwards were travelling OK, but have been shot ducks the last 2 games.

The backs, well, we need a lot of review in all positions imo.

It's pretty simple, if you don't want to play here, then go, put yourself on the market & see what your value is?

 

[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.

No I got what you meant, but I still don't agree with it, as if the club can't fit him at a value another club wants to pay it takes away his ability to stay. Why should a well managed team be punished for a club on tilt offering stupid money?

But it sorta works that way anyway, clubs needing to shed players. Take WT for example, we’ll never be able to afford to re-sign Packer once we upgrade some decent juniors...

 

[nuggetron]

with teams getting pumped weekly, cellar dweller clubs stuck there for multiple years, how can the nrl justify a 17th team?
there clearly isn't enough talent when a team like the dogs can spend 4+ years in the bottom 2, the donkeys (nrls love child) struggle to get a handful of wins over 2 years, teams stuck in the bottom 8 for a decade
in an ideal world, you would want every club to be equal chance to play finals football and possibly win the comp before the season kicks off.
with concerns on HIAs, restricting young kids from playing, the lack of key halves players (evident from the struggling teams every year) how can they justify an extra team?
the 17th team will only impact the same struggling teams and just add another has run and not a competitor

 

[Telltails]

Too many excuses.

**Line speed in defence is an Effort and Attitude thing**.

That's true but in the current game if you don't get a share of possession and a team is clearly more talented fatigue will effect effort and attitude. It's not just a problem for us its been happening regularly across the competition. Even the NRL's premier showpiece was a debacle. Great for the Blues supporters to get a 50 points on QLD - but as a spectacle that is the last thing the NRL wants.

 

[nuggetron]

Manly just dusted the Titan 56 to 24, these blowouts are becoming common, aren’t they?

Worst thing that happened to the Schoolies was half time by the looks of it.

or when they took peachey off

 

[TigerWest]

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.

No I got what you meant, but I still don't agree with it, as if the club can't fit him at a value another club wants to pay it takes away his ability to stay. Why should a well managed team be punished for a club on tilt offering stupid money?


But it sorta works that way anyway, clubs needing to shed players. Take WT for example, we’ll never be able to afford to re-sign Packer once we upgrade some decent juniors...

Bad example, I don't think there are any worries about the club not resigning Packer:joy: :joy: :joy:

 

[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.

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.

No I got what you meant, but I still don't agree with it, as if the club can't fit him at a value another club wants to pay it takes away his ability to stay. Why should a well managed team be punished for a club on tilt offering stupid money?


But it sorta works that way anyway, clubs needing to shed players. Take WT for example, we’ll never be able to afford to re-sign Packer once we upgrade some decent juniors...

Not if he agreed to stay for a lower amount. Club A shouldn't be penalised because club B is desperate and offer a player a ridiculous contract.

 

[tigerballs]

One of the biggest problems with this side, aside from rediculous team selections, and bench rotation ,is speed, or more importantly our lack of it. We won a title with it.
To my mind it is a basic requirment, their only a very few can excel without it. We have kept buying players without it, eg; Momo, AD, TT, JL, our new winger,and the cup side has a few in the backs as well. How many of these players ever ran more then 15 mtrs in a game? How many top sides carry slow players? Speed and aggresion in the forwards, thats what wins games.

But we have the Jet and Fitzgibbon

 

[finnzo]

They need to implement the rule that a player isn’t aloud to take less money to stay at a club if they get offered more some where els then the current club has to match it this would see a lot more big names go to weaker clubs I no there is some negatives with this rule but something has to give

 

[cochise]

They need to implement the rule that a player isn’t aloud to take less money to stay at a club if they get offered more some where els then the current club has to match it this would see a lot more big names go to weaker clubs I no there is some negatives with this rule but something has to give

I don't like that idea. Why should you punish one club because another club can't manage their cap and offer too much.

 

[finnzo]

They need to implement the rule that a player isn’t aloud to take less money to stay at a club if they get offered more some where els then the current club has to match it this would see a lot more big names go to weaker clubs I no there is some negatives with this rule but something has to give

I don't like that idea. Why should you punish one club because another club can't manage their cap and offer too much.

Yeah it would suck if you were a really good player and had to go from say a roosters to tigers I’m just trying to think of ideas that could help the comp

 

[jrtiger]

One of the biggest problems with this side, aside from rediculous team selections, and bench rotation ,is speed, or more importantly our lack of it. We won a title with it.
To my mind it is a basic requirment, their only a very few can excel without it. We have kept buying players without it, eg; Momo, AD, TT, JL, our new winger,and the cup side has a few in the backs as well. How many of these players ever ran more then 15 mtrs in a game? How many top sides carry slow players? Speed and aggresion in the forwards, thats what wins games.


But we have the Jet and Fitzgibbon

neither of them are first graders. I love Jimmy but he's a shadow of his former self, and we cannot rush Fitzgibbon. any word on Smith-Shields?

 

[Red88_Tiger]

They need to implement the rule that a player isn’t aloud to take less money to stay at a club if they get offered more some where els then the current club has to match it this would see a lot more big names go to weaker clubs I no there is some negatives with this rule but something has to give

I could go with this if it was a 10% maximum difference. It would mean loosing bidder would also need to lodge an offer with nrl which I can see clubs might not want to do

 

[izotope]

Not sure why we are trying to reinvent the wheel.

We haven't missed out on finals for 10 years because the roosters,storm,eels are holding us back, or because the REF's favour the top teams or the NRL is rigged.

It is because our organisation is/has been a joke {may be sorting themselves out now}.

Love or hate Phil Gould this a tweet that sounds spot on to me. Responding to why struggling teams still struggle

"Short term thinking. They all want a long term plan, but they want to win something first. Committing to a long term plan IS the win. The success is the journey, not the destination."