@gallagher said in [Waits Setu](/post/1095603) said:@WT2K said in [Waits Setu](/post/1095597) said:@Tiger_Steve said in [Waits Setu](/post/1095596) said:@jirskyr said in [Waits Setu](/post/1095577) said:@Tiger_Steve said in [Waits Setu](/post/1095534) said:@jirskyr said in [Waits Setu](/post/1095533) said:@balmain-boy said in [Waits Setu](/post/1095514) said:@AnnandaleTiger said in [Waits Setu](/post/1095488) said:I don’t think you can go into a development contract if you have already played for storm and broncos.
He hasn't played nrl.
And even if he had yes he'd still be eligible for a dev contract
Brock Lamb is on a dev contract this year, correct? And he's played firsts for both Knights and Easts.
Are you serious? That’s a joke. Why have these development contracts if clubs can take the piss? Bloody hell. NRL cannot get anything right.
I don't know if they are taking the piss, it's obviously within the rules. I don't know specifically what the rules are for dev contracts.
If you want to waste a dev spot on a journeyman, I have no issue with it. There's some other kid looking for a shot who will join another club for that dev contract.
But Surely the concept of ‘development player’ Is the polar opposite of ‘journeyman.’ I would think development contracts would have to be used by young players with potential not yet ready for the rigours of NRL. Hence they are being ‘developed.’
It's a joke of a system when a guy that's played 33 NRL games can be put on a DC.
But they can't play NRL can they?
Not sure how it works, but they are eligible after R16/17 from memory.