“Nothing dentured nothing gained.”

Encouraging link play from Thompson with that second try to McIntyre. Got on the outside of two defenders to create a 3 on 1 that put Jennings away, he then got into first receiver to deliver a long sharp accurate spiral pass to centre field where the space was - has the awareness of where the ball needs to be.

Surprised Dylan Smith isn’t getting a run.

Some here on the forum don’t rate him, for others the jury is still out.

Considering he’s in the top 30, the 9’s would’ve been a good format to see what he could do.

@JoshColeman99 said in Signing Suggestions & Rumours:

Oliver Clarke, Rob Jennings, Chris Lawrence, Benji Marshall, Sam McIntyre, Chris McQueen, Paul Momirovski, Alex Seyfarth, Matt Eisenhuth and Elijah Taylor are all off contract for 2021.

Honestly the only guys Madge might keep are Seyfarth and Momirovski. Might depend on how some of them go this year but I’d expect a few new faces next season

One obvious one to lose their spot is Jennings with the promotion of Cini for 2021.

Tigers recruitment will cast the net wide and juniors will rise through the ranks. Players off contract always have plenty of incentive and motivation to play well - money and another contract.

An experienced middle forward leader with rep and big game experience would be nice in 2021 as our pack will still be relatively inexperienced - someone like Frizell fits that criteria.

The forum Rd1 line-ups look good with Mbye at centre, but I’m not so sure he’s suddenly going to shift back to left centre if Grant comes on board.

Hooker is such an important position and the rookie Grant could be the only specialist available. It would be a lot of pressure to expect him to play big minutes for 24 rounds.

Madge has Mbye training at hooker and it would not surprise me if this continues as the ball-work sessions intensify through February. It could be risky relying too much on Grant, decision making and game management under pressure and fatigue at NRL level is essential to the role and an experienced player (Mbye) could be invaluable to the team playing hooker, more so than sitting out on an edge. If Grant comes on board then I think he and Mbye will both play in tandem (Grant on the bench), plus Mbye’s utility value will be a bonus covering backline injuries during games.

As for left centre, the position is open for Talau. Hopefully he’s having a good preseason and preparing well. The other option Jennings sounds like he’s trimmed down, hopefully this means the guy is settled and enjoying a more focused preseason, and that he’ll be a more productive player this year.

Keep in mind that Mbye proved last year he was able to adapt to centre quickly and he can do so again if needed, but for this season (at least for the first half) I suspect he’ll continue with the hooking role.

You would think if a clubs cap is managed well then it should be aggressive in the player market every 1-2 years.

It feels like the Tigers went through an aggressive cycle every 3-4 years - a result of subpar recruitment and retention.

Hopefully that’s changing, and it feels like it is!

The clubs done well considering our cap and roster position at the end last season, recent recruitment and retention seems more diligent and strategic.

@cochise said in Signing Suggestions & Rumours:

@Fletch said in Signing Suggestions & Rumours:

@jirskyr said in Signing Suggestions & Rumours:

@Fletch said in Signing Suggestions & Rumours:

$327k is the median of the salary cap, but not necessarily the average salary. Without accurate salary figures it’s difficult to determine the average as it depends on how many players on a roster are earning overs and unders and by what margins. I’m guessing the average salary would be lower than $327k considering marquee players take up large portions of the cap - it would be interesting to know…

No I’m pretty sure you are not correct. Assuming the club spends 100% of its salary cap (I think they have to spent at minimum 90%?) then the average salary is, by definition, $9.8M divided by 30, for each and every club. We know these parameters to be set and not dependent on an individual allocation of funds.

The median is actually the calculation that is impacted by significant individual salaries, because it’s the “middle value” of the set.

So for instance, an imaginary pool of 10 players

1, 1, 1, 1, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.2, 0.2 --> N = 10, sum = 6.4, median = 0.5, average = 0.64

1, 0.9, 0.9, 0.9, 0.7, 0.6, 0.5, 0.4, 0.3, 0.2 --> N = 10, sum = 6.4, median = 0.7, average = 0.64Note how the median is skewed in the first set because of the uneven distribution of funds, even though the top 4 players are on almost the same money.

I have to reacquaint myself with the ‘4 averages’: mean, median, mode and range.

I think what I’m searching for is an average that’s closer to the ‘mode’ (data that occurs the most) - rather than the mean or median averages.

To get the mode average don’t we need to eliminate the data from the bell curve that ‘skews’ - i.e. the high earners and those on the minimum wage, and then calculate the average from what’s remaining…?

To me the mode average would be interesting in relation to the salary cap, but it’s difficult to attain unless you have the data, plus you then need to apply discretion to determine how much data you eliminate - and where you apply that discretion will give you different results.

Meanis the average i.e add all numbers together and divide by the amount of numbers.

Medianis the middle i.e list all the numbers in order and the number in the middle is the median.

Modeis the number that occurs the most i.e list all the numbers and the number that appears the most is the mode.

Rangeis the difference between the lowest and highest number.So I am not sure what you are trying to say.

Ultimately I’m trying to understand how clubs structure their salary cap. This might be a better way of explaining it (I think this is how the Sharks do it):

If a club spends half of their cap $4.9m on 6 elite players at an average of $816k each.

Then the other $4.9m of the cap is spread over the remaining 24 players at an average of $204k each.

@jirskyr said in Signing Suggestions & Rumours:

@Fletch said in Signing Suggestions & Rumours:

@jirskyr said in Signing Suggestions & Rumours:

@Fletch said in Signing Suggestions & Rumours:

$327k is the median of the salary cap, but not necessarily the average salary. Without accurate salary figures it’s difficult to determine the average as it depends on how many players on a roster are earning overs and unders and by what margins. I’m guessing the average salary would be lower than $327k considering marquee players take up large portions of the cap - it would be interesting to know…

No I’m pretty sure you are not correct. Assuming the club spends 100% of its salary cap (I think they have to spent at minimum 90%?) then the average salary is, by definition, $9.8M divided by 30, for each and every club. We know these parameters to be set and not dependent on an individual allocation of funds.

The median is actually the calculation that is impacted by significant individual salaries, because it’s the “middle value” of the set.

So for instance, an imaginary pool of 10 players

1, 1, 1, 1, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.2, 0.2 --> N = 10, sum = 6.4, median = 0.5, average = 0.64

1, 0.9, 0.9, 0.9, 0.7, 0.6, 0.5, 0.4, 0.3, 0.2 --> N = 10, sum = 6.4, median = 0.7, average = 0.64Note how the median is skewed in the first set because of the uneven distribution of funds, even though the top 4 players are on almost the same money.

I have to reacquaint myself with the ‘4 averages’: mean, median, mode and range.

I think what I’m searching for is an average that’s closer to the ‘mode’ (data that occurs the most) - rather than the mean or median averages.

To get the mode average don’t we need to eliminate the data from the bell curve that ‘skews’ - i.e. the high earners and those on the minimum wage, and then calculate the average from what’s remaining…?

To me the mode average would be interesting in relation to the salary cap, but it’s difficult to attain unless you have the data, plus you then need to apply discretion to determine how much data you eliminate - and where you apply that discretion will give you different results.

Ahh… footballers make good money is the point of it all, whatever the mathematical mechanism to get there. Yes many fall by the wayside but so does the general public in many endeavours big and small. So my point being - sure footballers want to make as much money as possible with their opportunities, but who doesn’t? And most folks don’t get a shot at several hundred thousand p.a.

Your original point is valid and I agree with you. I went off on a tangent, and in hindsight I probably should have pointed that out from the outset.

@jirskyr said in Signing Suggestions & Rumours:

@Fletch said in Signing Suggestions & Rumours:

$327k is the median of the salary cap, but not necessarily the average salary. Without accurate salary figures it’s difficult to determine the average as it depends on how many players on a roster are earning overs and unders and by what margins. I’m guessing the average salary would be lower than $327k considering marquee players take up large portions of the cap - it would be interesting to know…

No I’m pretty sure you are not correct. Assuming the club spends 100% of its salary cap (I think they have to spent at minimum 90%?) then the average salary is, by definition, $9.8M divided by 30, for each and every club. We know these parameters to be set and not dependent on an individual allocation of funds.

The median is actually the calculation that is impacted by significant individual salaries, because it’s the “middle value” of the set.

So for instance, an imaginary pool of 10 players

1, 1, 1, 1, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.5, 0.2, 0.2 --> N = 10, sum = 6.4, median = 0.5, average = 0.64

1, 0.9, 0.9, 0.9, 0.7, 0.6, 0.5, 0.4, 0.3, 0.2 --> N = 10, sum = 6.4, median = 0.7, average = 0.64Note how the median is skewed in the first set because of the uneven distribution of funds, even though the top 4 players are on almost the same money.

I have to reacquaint myself with the ‘4 averages’: mean, median, mode and range.

I think what I’m searching for is an average that’s closer to the ‘mode’ (data that occurs the most) - rather than the mean or median averages.

To get the mode average don’t we need to eliminate the data from the bell curve that ‘skews’ - i.e. the high earners and those on the minimum wage, and then calculate the average from what’s remaining…?

To me the mode average would be interesting in relation to the salary cap, but it’s difficult to attain unless you have the data, plus you then need to apply discretion to determine how much data you eliminate - and where you apply that discretion will give you different results.

@jirskyr said in Signing Suggestions & Rumours:

@GNR4LIFE said in Signing Suggestions & Rumours:

@wokesmoke said in Signing Suggestions & Rumours:

@GNR4LIFE said in Signing Suggestions & Rumours:

The “looking out for my family” routine is cliche rubbish. These guys are earning high six figures. The average joe earning 150k can easily look after his family. These guys are making triple that.

They earn big money for a short period of time. I don’t know if you follow NBA or not but look at what happened to delonte West recently. The majority won’t know what to do when they retire and often end up in financial trouble.

I know their window for earning big money is limited, but they have time and all the resources to give themselves the best life they can post football.

I agree, I don’t buy the whole “their window is short” spiel either. Yes it is short and fine, 5 years is the average NRL career.

The minimum wage this year is $110K, with a cap of $9.8M. That means the average wage, without endorsements, is $327K per footballer per club.

The average Australian FT wage is approx $86K. So your “average” footballer earns 4 times the average Australian and this average 5 year career is 20 years for an average Aussie.

ESPECIALLY if they retire sub-30s, plenty of time to find another career path. I got my first FT job when I was 24; there aren’t many short-term NRL careers given away at 35.

And it’s not as if an average Aussie doesn’t change careers or jobs either, with 5 years being a reasonably common time. Think of all the folks forcibly removed from their jobs, through redundancy or illness - no different to a short NRL career IMO.

Yes NRL players get beat up for a living but they also get paid to stay fit, have everything looked after during their career (e.g. medical) and have a gateway to massive pay packets if they have sufficient talent.

I would think it rare the skillful office worker, project manager, civil servant, engineer, occupational therapist etc. who can jag $1M p.a. at the top of their game.

I’m with others on here that an upside to the Stefano situation is that it can keep us in the player market for a mid-season switch, or elevate one of our performing Development or CC players.

Each season a few quality players look to transfer, and the Tigers will have the cap space to accommodate. Some of last years mid-season transfers: Su’a, Blake, King, Kata, DWZ, Roberts. There’s that chance a player could become available that fits nicely with Madge’s long term roster plans.