Signings, Suggestions & Rumours Discussion

[momo_amp_medo]

so here we are again letting players go ( no matter what the cause ) and what will we get to replace this player, well there is nothing out there, all these so called clubs who were over the cap, are now buying players and we are the only fools left with no players to bring in, somethings just never change.

I don't think you comprehend the notion that Suli was a lost cause with the Tigers. Management did everything they possibly could to get him back on track and focused and he simply wasn't interested. Do you want to pay a bloke 460k per year to sit on his backside and gain weight, not put in and string the club along while everyone else does the right thing - puts in the hard yards and shows the club the respect it deserves?

X2

Letting Suli go was the only course of action the Tigers could take.

 

[king_sirro]

His salary keeps going up by the post…lol..

Lol was thinking exactly the same thing. The 1.3m will soon be annually rather then over 4 years.

 

[happy_tiger]

Soo.. who do you all think we'll target now that we have another roster spot open…

RTS 😛ray:

Would love RTS but cant see that happeing this close to the season starting. Maybe mid year if warriors are stinking it up

What do you mean "if" the Warriors are stinking it up, should be "when".

Brian Smith will drive half the Warriors players away within 18 months

Be patient WT's fans

 

[Spud_Murphy]

so here we are again letting players go ( no matter what the cause ) and what will we get to replace this player, well there is nothing out there, all these so called clubs who were over the cap, are now buying players and we are the only fools left with no players to bring in, somethings just never change.

I don't think you comprehend the notion that Suli was a lost cause with the Tigers. Management did everything they possibly could to get him back on track and focused and he simply wasn't interested. Do you want to pay a bloke 460k per year to sit on his backside and gain weight, not put in and string the club along while everyone else does the right thing - puts in the hard yards and shows the club the respect it deserves?

Letting Suli go was the only course of action the Tigers could take.

X2 Well said.

x3
He is a special talent and will achieve great things if he gets his attitude right but as Willow said, if he doesn't put in the hard yards at training and isn't willing to listen to club officials - he isn't someone I would want representing Wests Tigers.

If Suli has such a bad attitude and is not willing to put in, it begs the question - why did Canterbury sign him for 3 years? And why did he agree to going there if he's not really that interested in playing rugby league? None of this makes sense, there has to be more to the story of why we've released him. In any case, if Suli thinks he's going to get an easy ride and can bludge while playing under Dean Pay, he's in for a rude shock!

 

[happy_tiger]

I don't think you comprehend the notion that Suli was a lost cause with the Tigers. Management did everything they possibly could to get him back on track and focused and he simply wasn't interested. Do you want to pay a bloke 460k per year to sit on his backside and gain weight, not put in and string the club along while everyone else does the right thing - puts in the hard yards and shows the club the respect it deserves?

Letting Suli go was the only course of action the Tigers could take.

X2 Well said.

x3
He is a special talent and will achieve great things if he gets his attitude right but as Willow said, if he doesn't put in the hard yards at training and isn't willing to listen to club officials - he isn't someone I would want representing Wests Tigers.

If Suli has such a bad attitude and is not willing to put in, it begs the question - why did Canterbury sign him for 3 years? And why did he agree to going there if he's not really that interested in playing rugby league? None of this makes sense, there has to be more to the story of why we've released him. In any case, if Suli thinks he's going to get an easy ride and can bludge while playing under Dean Pay, he's in for a rude shock!

And why were the Storm battling us hammer and tong last year for his signature ??

 

[Spud_Murphy]

X2 Well said.

x3
He is a special talent and will achieve great things if he gets his attitude right but as Willow said, if he doesn't put in the hard yards at training and isn't willing to listen to club officials - he isn't someone I would want representing Wests Tigers.

If Suli has such a bad attitude and is not willing to put in, it begs the question - why did Canterbury sign him for 3 years? And why did he agree to going there if he's not really that interested in playing rugby league? None of this makes sense, there has to be more to the story of why we've released him. In any case, if Suli thinks he's going to get an easy ride and can bludge while playing under Dean Pay, he's in for a rude shock!

And why were the Storm battling us hammer and tong last year for his signature ??

His precocious talent was there for all to see, but I guess neither club saw the supposed 'bad attitude' lurking beneath at that time.

 

[Nelson]

X2 Well said.

x3
He is a special talent and will achieve great things if he gets his attitude right but as Willow said, if he doesn't put in the hard yards at training and isn't willing to listen to club officials - he isn't someone I would want representing Wests Tigers.

If Suli has such a bad attitude and is not willing to put in, it begs the question - why did Canterbury sign him for 3 years? And why did he agree to going there if he's not really that interested in playing rugby league? None of this makes sense, there has to be more to the story of why we've released him. In any case, if Suli thinks he's going to get an easy ride and can bludge while playing under Dean Pay, he's in for a rude shock!

And why were the Storm battling us hammer and tong last year for his signature ??

The Storm were after him 12 months ago before he'd: developed a serious injury that has not rehabilitated well; seemingly shown a poor attitude towards training; and seemingly shown an inability to deal with adversity. He was sought after because of his physical ability but the mental side was an unknown that clubs were prepared to take a gamble on.

Why did the Bulldogs sign him for 3 years? Because he wasn't going to walk away from his current contract for less. If they wanted him they had to offer him 3 years. They're taking an even bigger gamble than we did when we signed him 12 months ago because they've got themselves in a hole and they need to make risky plays like that. The last big, powerful outside back they thought they could turn around (Jacob Loko) didn't go so well for them. He's 25 and off in the rugby league wilderness…

 

[Red88_Tiger]

Would be interested to know if the senior playing group tried to pull him in to line.

 

[palms]

I thought this was the rumoured signings thread?

 

[tigerap]

According to NRL rules every club must have 29 players signed by Mar 1 and 30 by Jun 1\. As we have 28 currently, means an additional signing is on the cards by Mar 1

 

[clontarfkid]

so here we are again letting players go ( no matter what the cause ) and what will we get to replace this player, well there is nothing out there, all these so called clubs who were over the cap, are now buying players and we are the only fools left with no players to bring in, somethings just never change.

I don't think you comprehend the notion that Suli was a lost cause with the Tigers. Management did everything they possibly could to get him back on track and focused and he simply wasn't interested. Do you want to pay a bloke 460k per year to sit on his backside and gain weight, not put in and string the club along while everyone else does the right thing - puts in the hard yards and shows the club the respect it deserves?

Letting Suli go was the only course of action the Tigers could take.

X2 Well said.

Well…we paid almost 3 times this amount last year to former players representing other clubs to play AGIANST us...which achieved absolutely nothing.
Parking Suli nowhere near the 1sts team at least sends a signal that were not gonna get rolled over yet again.You only have to do this once.....Ive done this myself in the past,and u only have to do it once for the word to get around were no soft touch.
By the time Suli got to this late stage he was probably irretrievable,but less than 12 mths ago he was fully committed to sign a 3 yr deal...got a rails run into 1sts..and acquitted himself quite well.My guess is the slow recovery from injury made him vulnerable to Dogs approaches(McDonnell/Woods) re their allegedly superior facilities blah blah,and quite probably a behaviour plan to achieve his end goal of.leaving WT .But nobody at WT(management/leaders) saw it caming to potentially nip in the bud early..thats what surprises most

 

[supercoach]

He may have done a big dummy spit like his name sake and refused to train in order to get out of the place, but the bottom line and I dont care how good they are, if they dont want to be on the bus…show em the door.

Some people have also said that maybe we should be looking at our football staff and there ability to handle "special needs" players, I think Cleary would be close to the best in the NRL in the people skills department.

Very Very few kids who have big attitude problems ever turn things around at a new club and Suli will not be a exception.

One last thing that has to be remembered, we played our best football at the back end of 2017 when he was on the side lines. Not saying he was the difference between playing good or bad, but the players who replaced him also showed plenty of ability and a lot more ticker

 

[Tigerdon]

x3
He is a special talent and will achieve great things if he gets his attitude right but as Willow said, if he doesn't put in the hard yards at training and isn't willing to listen to club officials - he isn't someone I would want representing Wests Tigers.

If Suli has such a bad attitude and is not willing to put in, it begs the question - why did Canterbury sign him for 3 years? And why did he agree to going there if he's not really that interested in playing rugby league? None of this makes sense, there has to be more to the story of why we've released him. In any case, if Suli thinks he's going to get an easy ride and can bludge while playing under Dean Pay, he's in for a rude shock!

And why were the Storm battling us hammer and tong last year for his signature ??

The Storm were after him 12 months ago before he'd: developed a serious injury that has not rehabilitated well; seemingly shown a poor attitude towards training; and seemingly shown an inability to deal with adversity. He was sought after because of his physical ability but the mental side was an unknown that clubs were prepared to take a gamble on.

Why did the Bulldogs sign him for 3 years? Because he wasn't going to walk away from his current contract for less. If they wanted him they had to offer him 3 years. They're taking an even bigger gamble than we did when we signed him 12 months ago because they've got themselves in a hole and they need to make risky plays like that. The last big, powerful outside back they thought they could turn around (Jacob Loko) didn't go so well for them. He's 25 and off in the rugby league wilderness…

Jacob Loko in the backs and everyone (including me ) was upset when they signed Lamar Liolevave off us in the forwards. He was very good at a young age like Suli.

If Suli wasn’t going to play in the first part of the season I’m glad he’s been cut from our Top 30\. Free’s up space and money. Rather that than sitting out of NRL on big money.

 

[JD Tiger]

I had a scary thought last night whilst thinking about Suli going to the Bulldogs. It was that clubs who back-end contracts have a massive advantage over those who don't.

If a team engages in this practice, adding a player to their roster on a heavily back-ended contract, it benefits them now certainly. But the downside is it is meant to restrict them in the latter years of that contract where they have less cap to manoeuvre with. Well, not if they back-end the next contracts also. Just keep back-ending them.

Sort of like a country with their national debt, but for a club there's no interest to pay, nor any limits or consequences.

The only hurdle I can see, is getting the approval of these contracts from NRL HQ, but that does not seem to be a problem for some clubs (e.g. Bulldogs with a lot of their contracts Eastwood, Graham, Morris, now supposedly Suli).

So why not buy a couple of $1m players right now on 4 year deals, back-end their contracts significantly, and keep doing it. Where's the downside?

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

I had a scary thought last night whilst thinking about Suli going to the Bulldogs. It was that clubs who back-end contracts have a massive advantage over those who don't.

If a team engages in this practice, adding a player to their roster on a heavily back-ended contract, it benefits them now certainly. But the downside is it is meant to restrict them in the latter years of that contract where they have less cap to manoeuvre with. Well, not if they back-end the next contracts also. Just keep back-ending them.

Sort of like a country with their national debt, but for a club there's no interest to pay, nor any limits or consequences.

The only hurdle I can see, is getting the approval of these contracts from NRL HQ, but that does not seem to be a problem for some clubs (e.g. Bulldogs with a lot of their contracts Eastwood, Graham, Morris, now supposedly Suli).

So why not buy a couple of $1m players right now on 4 year deals, back-end their contracts significantly, and keep doing it. Where's the downside?

I thought the NRL abolished back ended contracts?

 

[jadtiger]

I had a scary thought last night whilst thinking about Suli going to the Bulldogs. It was that clubs who back-end contracts have a massive advantage over those who don't.

If a team engages in this practice, adding a player to their roster on a heavily back-ended contract, it benefits them now certainly. But the downside is it is meant to restrict them in the latter years of that contract where they have less cap to manoeuvre with. Well, not if they back-end the next contracts also. Just keep back-ending them.

Sort of like a country with their national debt, but for a club there's no interest to pay, nor any limits or consequences.

The only hurdle I can see, is getting the approval of these contracts from NRL HQ, but that does not seem to be a problem for some clubs (e.g. Bulldogs with a lot of their contracts Eastwood, Graham, Morris, now supposedly Suli).

So why not buy a couple of $1m players right now on 4 year deals, back-end their contracts significantly, and keep doing it. Where's the downside?

The downside is eventually it all catches up, Eastwood is on a contract where he gets paid repotedly about 800k this year.The dogs tried to get rid of him but nobody would take him so he is an anchor on their cap this year.Backending deals is how we got caught paying almost a million dollars to other clubs

 

[JD Tiger]

….

So why not buy a couple of $1m players right now on 4 year deals, back-end their contracts significantly, and keep doing it. Where's the downside?

I thought the NRL abolished back ended contracts?

I don't know, if so, how recently? Some rumours say the Dogs put Suli on one. Some of their current players are reportedly on them.

Assuming the cap may go up in future years, paying the player a little more each year makes sense as though their nominal price is increasing, one could be trying to ensure that the percentage of the cap that that player fills up remains constant. So back-ending (on a small scale) could make sense in that mindset.

But personally I think yes if they haven't, they should abolish large back-ended contracts. It's just dodgy as clubs try to get out of it in the end.

 

[Needaname]

Promote Heath Gibbs or sign a center that his path is blocked to first grade.

Was actually going to right this myself. As we have no Centre depth we will be needing this move. It doesn’t mean the kid is ready, it just means we are covered for depth in that position.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

….

So why not buy a couple of $1m players right now on 4 year deals, back-end their contracts significantly, and keep doing it. Where's the downside?

I thought the NRL abolished back ended contracts?

I don't know, if so, how recently? Some rumours say the Dogs put Suli on one. Some of their current players are reportedly on them.

Assuming the cap may go up in future years, paying the player a little more each year makes sense as though their nominal price is increasing, one could be trying to ensure that the percentage of the cap that that player fills up remains constant. So back-ending (on a small scale) could make sense in that mindset.

But personally I think yes if they haven't, they should abolish large back-ended contracts. It's just dodgy as clubs try to get out of it in the end.

Where the salary cap goes up year on year, you'd imagine that as long as the salary increases commensurate with the cap increase (i.e. if the cap goes up 10% year on year, well their salary could be upped by no more than 10%.)

I'd also wager if the backended contracts we terminated, any pre-existing registered contracts would have to be honoured.

 

[supercoach]

According to NRL rules every club must have 29 players signed by Mar 1 and 30 by Jun 1\. As we have 28 currently, means an additional signing is on the cards by Mar 1

Of course they can just upgrade a player from a lower tier onto a basic NRL contract. My guess it will be another journeyman who is way down the pecking order at another club. Time will tell, but I do not hear any whispers of anything in the pipeline, although they kept the Suli thing pretty quite