Tedesco Thread || He's staying!

Status
Not open for further replies.
@jirskyr said:
We have to remember that Fifita no longer with Dogs doesn't mean all that money is suddenly available to someone else. TPA's don't necessarily transfer directly to another player.

Especially if Fifita and his manager decide to take legal action against the dogs as well. If both sides agreed to a deal that is worth that much money, I can't imagine him just walking away quietly. Technically his future employment has been terminated while his current club Cronulla will have made plans over the past month for their future without him. I cant see any other club offering Fifita anywhere near that amount. I would think that leaves the dogs in a position where they can't offer anyone really big money in the short term.
 
@guyofthetiger said:
The Dogs are most in need of some creative spark. And speed. Teddy would fit the bill.

The Dogs need better halves and better outside backs.

I think if we hold Tedesco we will have an elite squad in 1-2 years, especially if the quick play the ball continues.

I said it before I think with Brooks, Moses, Farah and good young outside backs in Simona and Nofo we are better placed going forward than most clubs. I would rather play with these guys than the players at the Dogs.

If our pack matches other packs we have a lot of talent to come through our backline.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
 
My mail is that Teddy has signed and it will be announced this week.

(I actually heard he signed last week but they were holding off the announcement to boost Sunday's game at Leichhardt.)

Only time will tell whether I've got the good oil though!
 
Andrew Fifita asks NRL to investigate breakdown of Canterbury deal
>
Date
April 2, 2014 - 12:19AM
>
258 reading now
Vote
>
Adrian Proszenko, Brad Walter, Daniel Lane and Michael Carayannis
>
inShare
submit to reddit
Email article
Print
>
Future in limbo for Andrew Fifita
>
Andrew Fifita's confused messages in recent weeks have seen him at odds with the Sharks, his Bulldogs contract torn up and has put him in line for a potential code switch.
\
\
\
Andrew Fifita's management team has asked the NRL to investigate why his multi-million-dollar contract with Canterbury failed to come to fruition as it emerged that the Test prop knew the deal was on the verge of collapse when he made his controversial comments about wishing he'd signed with rugby union.
>
Representatives for Fifita met NRL officials at League Central on Tuesday to outline elements of the deal that Canterbury allegedly failed to honour after having reached agreement three weeks earlier, when the player signed a memorandum of understanding with the club.
>
It is understood the shortfall was worth up to $1 million over four years, with Fairfax Media told that the long-form contract Fifita received last Thursday was worth $335,000 under the salary cap and $250,000 in third-party agreements.
Calls for investigation: Sharks prop Andrew Fifita.
>
Calls for investigation: Sharks prop Andrew Fifita. Photo: Getty Images
>
Those amounts increased over the term of the contract, which had been widely reported as being worth $3.4 millon over four years.
>
Fifita, who announced he had agreed to a deal with Canterbury on Twitter after the Sharks round-one match against the Gold Coast, was the subject of widespread condemnation after he told an AAP reporter last Friday he had regrets over his decision to join the Bulldogs and would have preferred rugby instead.
>
But it is understood those comments were a reaction to what he felt was a shortfall in the money promised.
Driven to distraction: Cronulla have opened the season with four consecutive losses.
>
Driven to distraction: Cronulla have opened the season with four consecutive losses. Photo: Getty Images
>
If Fifita's intention was to force Canterbury's hand, he was successful, as the parties officially walked away from the deal on Monday.
>
However, the 24-year-old is unlikely to be able to earn the same amount he had expected to receive from the Bulldogs as rival offers were believed to include $650,000 per season from South Sydney and $700,000 per season to remain with Cronulla.
>
A teary Fifita told Cronulla teammates on March 10 that the Canterbury offer was too good to refuse and the Bulldogs confirmed his signing two days later.
>
Canterbury chairman Ray Dib was adamant the decision for his club and Fifita to go their separate ways was mutually agreed as the best decision for both parties.
>
"I found Andrew Fifita's management to be very professional, very commercial, very amicable and very fair - it was a pleasure dealing with them and I sincerely mean that," Dib said on Tuesday.
>
"I heard [it said] on talkback radio, 'We can't accept that the Bulldogs went in there and spoke to his manager and they were happy to go their separate ways, it just doesn't make sense'.
>
"I know it seems too simple but it is what happened . . . both parties . . . it is amazing when you get two parties together who act for the player's welfare and the club's welfare what you can come up with."
>
Bulldogs CEO Raelene Castle said on Monday the club had no issue accommodating Fifita under the salary cap or negotiating third party contracts and insisted the amount offered was less than reported.
>
Fifita returned to Sharks training on Tuesday morning not looking like someone who had just lost a multi-million-dollar contract. The prop was at his jovial best, laughing and mucking around where those close to him believe he is most comfortable – on the football field. He yahooed when he beat winger Beau Ryan in a sprint and trained with energy throughout the two-hour field session.
>
Cronulla coach Peter Sharp said Fifita had been distracted by his contract situation but had trained as a “leader” on Tuesday.
>
“The best thing Andrew could do was get his mind back on footy,” Sharp said. “It hasn’t been on footy. He hasn’t been focused, it’s obvious in the way he has performed.
>
“At the end of the day, Andrew is going to be OK. We’d all like to be in Andrew’s position. If he focuses on footy and gets his mind back on the job, then everything looks after itself.”
>
Sharp and Sharks skipper Paul Gallen have called on the club to recommence negotiations with Fifita. The Australian representative knocked back an offer of about $750,000 per season for four years from the Sharks to switch to the Bulldogs.
>
“We’ll definitely be an option again,” Sharp said. “What decision he makes is up to Andrew. We can only put our case on the table and give him some love.
>
“It’s not all doom and gloom for Andrew. He is still in a good position. He is still a wanted commodity and a good footy player. He just needs to get his mind back on the job.”
>
Cronulla chief executive Steve Noyce said it was too early to begin negotiations with Fifita.
>
“The immediate concern is the short-term future and making sure he is OK,” Noyce said. “That’s what we have been looking at it. We haven’t taken it any further.
>
“He seems OK. Players are always good when they are with each other in the training and playing environment. That’s a good place for him.
>
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/andrew-fifita-asks-nrl-to-investigate-breakdown-of-canterbury-deal-20140401-zqpf9.html#ixzz2xgGAF55e

Doesn't show bulldogs in a real great light.
Which is good news for Tigers.
Teddy might be wondering if any bulldogs offer is as good as it sounds.
 
Fifita at $335k under the cap,no wonder we can't compete,what a joke,if Greenberg approved this he needs to go now.
 
I know that Mayer has stated we won't be paying overs and I can see the sense in that. Especially for 'regular' players but there must be a case for paying a bit more for Tedesco if we need to. He is not only a gun player who is forming a great combo with Brooks but he is also a 'spine' player which changes things IMO.

This is not the same as paying Blair or Chris Lawrence a lot of money and/or long contract, it is also strategic.

Of course it will be a case of "well done" if we can sign him without paying more than we want but I hope we play our cards right with this game of contract negotiations.
 
@851 said:
Fifita at $335k under the cap,no wonder we can't compete,what a joke,if Greenberg approved this he needs to go now.

Maybe I'm deluding myself but one of the few oficials I see as an honourable person in the game is Todd Greenberg

Maybe he still has an iron in the fire at the Bulldogs , but in my opinion he is the sort of bloke that would go harder on the Dogs to prove a point
 
Those figures quoted in the article on Fifita can't be right - so he was going to leave the Sharks who reportedly offered $700k to accept $585k at the dogs - no way - the contract situation in the NRL is getting out of hand. I understand that most of the rubbish is dished up by the media but its no wonder fans are disgruntled when these sort of mis-figures are thrown about.
The NRL should put in place a limit on the amount of the TPA as a percentage of the actual contract. ie - say a maximum of 25% of the salary cap contract. So a player offered a contract of $400k could be offered a further $100k top up via a TPA. If they are fairdinkum about a level playing field this is the way to do it. And before everyone says it would be a restriction of trade etc - the whole salary cap is a restriction of trade - plus the NRL has already successfully set limits on other top ups within the cap.
 
Capping the money being invested into the game is crazy… We need to increase it through more open channels to encourage more and more corporations to invest into Rugby League.

Limiting TPA is not the answer... How they are administered is where we need to work on!
 
@diedpretty said:
Those figures quoted in the article on Fifita can't be right - so he was going to leave the Sharks who reportedly offered $700k to accept $585k at the dogs - no way

That's the problem isn't it? The Herald article says that Fifita was expecting terms of 850K p.a. (less in first year, then escalating over next 4) however those terms were not met when the paperwork came over, despite the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding.

Fifita makes public comments because the money he thinks he has been promised does not appear to be forthcoming, he is upset that it may have impacted the offer Sharks had previously made (which is not equivalent if not superior to the Dogs). These comments force the Dogs into a corner and they scupper the deal.

If this is true, it begs the question how Doggies come up with such a huge offer in principle, that evaporates when the paperwork arrives.

Or maybe they changed their mind when all the re-signings occurred (Morris, Graham) and they redid their Excel spreadsheet and found out there was a calculation error!
 
Maybe we need to stop believing some of the figures being bandied around in the press

Then we need to realize that ,some figures are inflated for whatever reason including TPA's etc
 
Wow, I can still buy tickets in Bay 8 at Leichhardt Oval on the Wednesday before Sundays game…unheard of. When is this announcement on the signing of Tedesco so i can buy the tickets!
 
Most were thinking the club would announce this week leading into Leichhardt. Usually by now they'd post a "Stay tuned for some exciting news tomorrow" announcement by now, but as the week goes on I'm less convinced we'll hear anything this week.

Maybe they'll leave it til next week leading into Campbelltown… Announce the re-signing of the local boy leading into the local game.
 
@diedpretty said:
Those figures quoted in the article on Fifita can't be right - so he was going to leave the Sharks who reportedly offered $700k to accept $585k at the dogs - no way - the contract situation in the NRL is getting out of hand. I understand that most of the rubbish is dished up by the media but its no wonder fans are disgruntled when these sort of mis-figures are thrown about.
The NRL should put in place a limit on the amount of the TPA as a percentage of the actual contract. ie - say a maximum of 25% of the salary cap contract. So a player offered a contract of $400k could be offered a further $100k top up via a TPA. If they are fairdinkum about a level playing field this is the way to do it. And before everyone says it would be a restriction of trade etc - the whole salary cap is a restriction of trade - plus the NRL has already successfully set limits on other top ups within the cap.

Maybe the reported sharks figure was wrong?
Also says the bulldog contract was increasing each year which would have finished well above the sharks offer

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
 
@diedpretty said:
Those figures quoted in the article on Fifita can't be right - so he was going to leave the Sharks who reportedly offered $700k to accept $585k at the dogs - no way - the contract situation in the NRL is getting out of hand. I understand that most of the rubbish is dished up by the media but its no wonder fans are disgruntled when these sort of mis-figures are thrown about.
The NRL should put in place a limit on the amount of the TPA as a percentage of the actual contract. ie - say a maximum of 25% of the salary cap contract. So a player offered a contract of $400k could be offered a further $100k top up via a TPA. If they are fairdinkum about a level playing field this is the way to do it. And before everyone says it would be a restriction of trade etc - the whole salary cap is a restriction of trade - plus the NRL has already successfully set limits on other top ups within the cap.

I like the idea of the 25%…

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_
 
@jirskyr said:
@diedpretty said:
Those figures quoted in the article on Fifita can't be right - so he was going to leave the Sharks who reportedly offered $700k to accept $585k at the dogs - no way

That's the problem isn't it? The Herald article says that Fifita was expecting terms of 850K p.a. (less in first year, then escalating over next 4) however those terms were not met when the paperwork came over, despite the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding.

Fifita makes public comments because the money he thinks he has been promised does not appear to be forthcoming, he is upset that it may have impacted the offer Sharks had previously made (which is not equivalent if not superior to the Dogs). These comments force the Dogs into a corner and they scupper the deal.

If this is true, it begs the question how Doggies come up with such a huge offer in principle, that evaporates when the paperwork arrives.

Or maybe they changed their mind when all the re-signings occurred (Morris, Graham) and they redid their Excel spreadsheet and found out there was a calculation error!

Possibly, if Fifita looked under the table, he may have found the money that he thought was not forthcoming.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Back
Top