Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion

@jirskyr said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@tigerballs said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@jirskyr said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@tigerballs said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

Roosters now have $800,000 to spend since LM walked. How’s that work?

Not that much. The 800K offer was for 2021, so its not current money. Similarly Titans have fair cap space from Jai Arrow, but from 2021 not now.

In fact a lot of clubs have cap space coming up 2021, such is the cyclical nature of contracts.

Latrell signed his current extension in 2018, so he’s on the same contract as before they won a comp. Plus Roosters have already paid him some $120K for 2020, which counts against their cap.

Roosters also spent a lot of money re-signing key players this offseason, e.g. JWH and Taukeiaho, Joey Manu. A lot of that is probably Cooper Cronk’s money.

Do you think they’ve got enough to top up Verrills or should we make him an offer for 2021?

Personally I don’t think you should go after players who are only 20 matches into their career, unless you have a specific current need.

Verrills for 2020, sure, we are deficient in hooker. Verrills for 2021, it’s too early IMO. And then what did we sign Jake Simpkin for, if not for 2021? Also Liddle.

Personally, I’d target Bronson Xerri, but he’s not off contract until end 2021, so we cannot formally approach him until November 2020.

I’ve heard Xerri is on the nose with Sharks players, but that’s only hearsay.

And another circus starts again in the form of douehi

@jirskyr said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@Tiger_Steve said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@jirskyr said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@Tiger_Steve said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

So what is the trend? You are an analyst.

The trend is we are 0 from 1 in attempting to sign Latrell Mitchells.

However knowing as you do that you need at least 3 for a trend, it’s just a single datapoint, not a trend.

Come on - that is seriously taking the piss. Is that the best trend you can come up with?
Mate, don’t get me wrong. You post great stuff but that response was less than convincing. I’ve said a million times that missing Mitchell is not the dominant issue. It’s losing clutch moments continuously. That is our dominant trend (in my humble opinion).
If we sign JAC tomorrow, we start to correct that negative trend.

I agree on clutch moments, if you mean clutch moments on the field.

Signing Latrell, or not, isn’t a clutch moment at all. It’s a very long drawn-out affair. I am not aware of any trend of Tigers offering players a million bucks and being turned down. Not even privvy to the data about how many players Tigers have ever (or recently) made offers to and how successful we have been.

Recruitment is all shady talk anyway and almost no firm data, so you can’t really go building trends about recruitment.

By clutch moments I mean important end results - moments where it matters.
I agree we don’t understand The intricacies Of contract negotiations. Mate I know nothing on that front. But at end point - we lose. That’s my data point. End result. Interestingly, I wonder where we win in this regard? Maybe with players not seriously contested? I don’t know. But I stand by my hypothesis: when we want a good player - we lose. When we need to win - we lose.

@TheDaBoss said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

And another circus starts again in the form of douehi

Is Geo still grooming you to become a moderator?

@tigerballs said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@beachtiger said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@tigerballs said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@Glenn5150 said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@hobbo1 said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@Glenn5150 said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@Newtown said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

Opinions to NRL players from two unhappy recent ex-Wests tigers together with some South Sydney players who had been coached by Madge may have had a lot to do with West Tigers recent unfair reputation.

Not having a crack at you Newtown but what do all those saying “we can’t attract players because Madge is too tough” suggest?

The day the club replaces a coach because he was “too tough “ on players is the day the club signs up for another decade of poor performance and my last day as a supporter

Souths did just that …
Sacked Maguire for Seibold !

They sacked him after 6 successful years which included a premiership. Form dropped, I could excuse that.

I hate to admit this but I’m related to a current Souths player and I asked him about Madge when he signed for the Tigers. He was full of praise and denied he was too hard. I can tell you the whole sorry saga surrounding his sacking, or rather the rise of Seibold if you’re interested.

I’ve always been intrigued by his departure mate, please PM if you can with the story.

I’ll change the names to protect the innocent…
Once upon a time, not long after a new assistant coach started work at the Storm, another assistant who had been there for a while felt he was a bit on the outer, with the new guy scoring lots of points with the boss. So the old assistant decided to apply for a vacant NRL head coaching job and promptly won a premiership. His mate from the Storm, being a first class opportunist, saw an opportunity and joined the premiership winners, only to immediately start white-anting the head coach. This is where the rumours of the old coach being a hard task master started. The new guy had new ideas and a couple of degrees and could move the club forward with a more modern approach. He charmed the players and gradually turned them against the old coach. The board were also mesmerised and decided the assistant was the future, sacking the coach who had won them a long awaited premiership. A few months into the next season, the opportunist, who by now was beginning to resemble a snake, became aware that another long serving coach at his dream club was on the outer and began concocting a scheme to slither in to replace him, despite him being contracted for another season. The idea of a swap was devised by his management team, however there was a stumbling block. The snake by now was losing the confidence of his own players and the assistant coach, let’s call him DF, was by far more popular with the playing group. Rather than a swap for another coach, the players would prefer to keep DF as their head coach. This put the deal in jeopardy so the snake encouraged DF to take a head coaching job in the ESL to remove any obstacles. The players were filthy once the swap became a done deal, not because they were upset about getting a master coach but they realised they had just been used as just a rung in the ladder for the ultra ambitious snake. The news soon made it north and the result is there for all to see.

Thanks for sharing, have heard similar.

@Tiger_Steve said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

By clutch moments I mean important end results - moments where it matters.
I agree we don’t understand The intricacies Of contract negotiations. Mate I know nothing on that front. But at end point - we lose. That’s my data point. End result. Interestingly, I wonder where we win in this regard? Maybe with players not seriously contested? I don’t know. But I stand by my hypothesis: when we want a good player - we lose. When we need to win - we lose.

A fair number of clubs lost last year when they needed to win. Same as 2018. 2017 too.

Until 2018 Roosters had a fairly bad track record of losing when they needed to win, especially seeing all those minor premierships they earned.

re wanting good players, I dunno, we re-signed Twal, Garner just recently. We picked up Stefano from Eels, Tommy Talau re-signed, Brooks extended, lot of good kids coming onboard. In fact I believe several of the juniors we picked up were highly fancied elsewhere and taken from other systems.

All good players, all signed on. Not Latrell granted, but good footballers.

@Tiger_Steve said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@jirskyr said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@Tiger_Steve said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@jirskyr said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@Tiger_Steve said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

So what is the trend? You are an analyst.

The trend is we are 0 from 1 in attempting to sign Latrell Mitchells.

However knowing as you do that you need at least 3 for a trend, it’s just a single datapoint, not a trend.

Come on - that is seriously taking the piss. Is that the best trend you can come up with?
Mate, don’t get me wrong. You post great stuff but that response was less than convincing. I’ve said a million times that missing Mitchell is not the dominant issue. It’s losing clutch moments continuously. That is our dominant trend (in my humble opinion).
If we sign JAC tomorrow, we start to correct that negative trend.

I agree on clutch moments, if you mean clutch moments on the field.

Signing Latrell, or not, isn’t a clutch moment at all. It’s a very long drawn-out affair. I am not aware of any trend of Tigers offering players a million bucks and being turned down. Not even privvy to the data about how many players Tigers have ever (or recently) made offers to and how successful we have been.

Recruitment is all shady talk anyway and almost no firm data, so you can’t really go building trends about recruitment.

By clutch moments I mean important end results - moments where it matters.
I agree we don’t understand The intricacies Of contract negotiations. Mate I know nothing on that front. But at end point - we lose. That’s my data point. End result. Interestingly, I wonder where we win in this regard? Maybe with players not seriously contested? I don’t know. But I stand by my hypothesis: when we want a good player - we lose. When we need to win - we lose.

We lose if Mitchell turns out to be the best thing since sliced bread. We win if he doesn’t.

@colinbh said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@Tiger_Steve said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@jirskyr said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@Tiger_Steve said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@jirskyr said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@Tiger_Steve said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

So what is the trend? You are an analyst.

The trend is we are 0 from 1 in attempting to sign Latrell Mitchells.

However knowing as you do that you need at least 3 for a trend, it’s just a single datapoint, not a trend.

Come on - that is seriously taking the piss. Is that the best trend you can come up with?
Mate, don’t get me wrong. You post great stuff but that response was less than convincing. I’ve said a million times that missing Mitchell is not the dominant issue. It’s losing clutch moments continuously. That is our dominant trend (in my humble opinion).
If we sign JAC tomorrow, we start to correct that negative trend.

I agree on clutch moments, if you mean clutch moments on the field.

Signing Latrell, or not, isn’t a clutch moment at all. It’s a very long drawn-out affair. I am not aware of any trend of Tigers offering players a million bucks and being turned down. Not even privvy to the data about how many players Tigers have ever (or recently) made offers to and how successful we have been.

Recruitment is all shady talk anyway and almost no firm data, so you can’t really go building trends about recruitment.

By clutch moments I mean important end results - moments where it matters.
I agree we don’t understand The intricacies Of contract negotiations. Mate I know nothing on that front. But at end point - we lose. That’s my data point. End result. Interestingly, I wonder where we win in this regard? Maybe with players not seriously contested? I don’t know. But I stand by my hypothesis: when we want a good player - we lose. When we need to win - we lose.

We lose if Mitchell turns out to be the best thing since sliced bread. We win if he doesn’t.

True.

@Mossman said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@tigerballs said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@Glenn5150 said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@hobbo1 said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@Glenn5150 said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@Newtown said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

Opinions to NRL players from two unhappy recent ex-Wests tigers together with some South Sydney players who had been coached by Madge may have had a lot to do with West Tigers recent unfair reputation.

Not having a crack at you Newtown but what do all those saying “we can’t attract players because Madge is too tough” suggest?

The day the club replaces a coach because he was “too tough “ on players is the day the club signs up for another decade of poor performance and my last day as a supporter

Souths did just that …
Sacked Maguire for Seibold !

They sacked him after 6 successful years which included a premiership. Form dropped, I could excuse that.

I hate to admit this but I’m related to a current Souths player and I asked him about Madge when he signed for the Tigers. He was full of praise and denied he was too hard. I can tell you the whole sorry saga surrounding his sacking, or rather the rise of Seibold if you’re interested.

PM me I would like to know 🤘

Me as well please

@hobbo1 said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@TheDaBoss said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

And another circus starts again in the form of douehi

Is Geo still grooming you to become a moderator?

I aint gonna become a mod

I would still be banned by willow in a live game thread anyway

@TheDaBoss said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

And another circus starts again in the form of douehi

When does he get his own thread?

@bbobb said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@hsvjones said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@bbobb said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

Wow! Just watched the full PC. He looks really unfit but I got the impression still wants fullback. Wayne did look a bit coy when asked about the younger brigade (Doueihi etc) and I think he knows that he might need to release a couple.

Tigers should look to make Doueihi a very attractive offer. Clubs will often let players go on request so as to not stifle their careers - if we play our cards right, we might get someone halfway decent.

I believe Douehi is contracted until end of 2021 so we are unable to approach him until this Nov 1 unless Souths approve.

You’re right he is but wasn’t Esan Marsters in a similar situation?

Very close as the Cows could of talked to him from 1st Nov but we must of agreed to them talking early because he went in Oct.
I think Madge let him talk early as he knew the money he wanted and was not prepared to pay that after this coming season.

@jirskyr said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@Tiger_Steve said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@jirskyr said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@Tiger_Steve said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

So what is the trend? You are an analyst.

The trend is we are 0 from 1 in attempting to sign Latrell Mitchells.

However knowing as you do that you need at least 3 for a trend, it’s just a single datapoint, not a trend.

Come on - that is seriously taking the piss. Is that the best trend you can come up with?
Mate, don’t get me wrong. You post great stuff but that response was less than convincing. I’ve said a million times that missing Mitchell is not the dominant issue. It’s losing clutch moments continuously. That is our dominant trend (in my humble opinion).
If we sign JAC tomorrow, we start to correct that negative trend.

I agree on clutch moments, if you mean clutch moments on the field.

Signing Latrell, or not, isn’t a clutch moment at all. It’s a very long drawn-out affair. I am not aware of any trend of Tigers offering players a million bucks and being turned down. Not even privvy to the data about how many players Tigers have ever (or recently) made offers to and how successful we have been.

Recruitment is all shady talk anyway and almost no firm data, so you can’t really go building trends about recruitment.

Luke lewis. Not a million dollars but the ratio to output/potential was the same. Plus this was before million dollar contracts. Think we tried to sign him for 650,000.

Don’t be coy. You know the trend he is referring to and one such example is as above. Analyse that.

Anyway. Case closed on this one for mi e.

Recent Topics

Support our community by clicking here and joining our Forum Support Scheme

Can’t log in or access your account?
Send an email to contact@weststigersforum.com and we’ll get you back online.