Joined
Last Online
Recent Posts
posted in Contracts read more

I cant read it, but it seems to be about Stefano.

posted in Contracts read more

Id still talk to Douehi. We cant offer him a contract yet, but surely we can meet him and tell him if we were in a posiiton to offer a contract, itd be something like 350k/400k a year for 3 years.

If WT dont know how to do that, ask Cows or Eels.

posted in Contracts read more

Question, if we sign someone for 2021 season onwards, can we start paying them from Jan or Feb 2020? In effect the player would be getting paid twice, one from us, one from the other club, but its possible right?

posted in Contracts read more

Head up @tiger_steve, I know sometimes we suck, yeah we do, but it might be this year it comes good for is. 2005 can happen again, round 16 that year we were 10th, with more losses than wins.

We’ll get there again. Eventually. Maybe sooner rather later.

posted in Contracts read more

@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.

Steve mate, only a couple of years ago we paid big money for Packer, Matulino, Reynolds, MBye, getting all of them… now it turns out maybe we shouldn’t have gotten any of them in hindsight, maybe Mats, but at the time they were big signings that we lured here.

Not as big as LM, sure, but still big.

posted in Contracts read more

@hobbo1 said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@Tiger_Steve said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

@innsaneink said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

This is a massive loss for us and I believe will have a roll on affect re recruitment… People can put any spin on it they like but this is highly embarrassing for WTs

100%.

Let’s be clear - I love the Tigers. Doesn’t mean I can’t be fed up. The club keep saying failure is not an option but EVERY SINGLE TIME we have a moment that needs winning - we fail. On and off the field. EVERY SINGLE TIME.

We need a HUGE signing before season kicks off but I reckon there’s stuff all chance of that.

We will probably fail to spend our 2020 cap money and get fined $500K by Greenberg.
That’s how we roll …

I can see it now, like a scene out of Brewster’s Millions with Richard Pryor, it’s June 30, and 95% of our cap has to be spent, and we just scrape in with a few front loaded re-contracts, and Greenturd waves and says “Don’t forget this cap exemption for $5,000 for the parking spots” and we have to do a mad rush and re-do Twal’s contract again whilst Toddy is sitting there laughing watching his gold-rimmed watch…

posted in Contracts read more

@AnnandaleTiger said in Latrell Mitchell Contract Discussion:

Reasons - Wayne, Family treatment, Cody and the boys, his Dad supports them, desire to play fullback, an opportunity to better his footy, fall in love with footy again.
Not money…

No wonder we weren’t in consideration.

Absolute lie, not money. (Not you annandaletiger, I mean LM if he said that.) He’ll get his money in other ways, he’ll get more than we offered, no doubt at all.

We need to learn how to cheat.

posted in Contracts read more

@jirskyr said in Josh Addo Carr Contract Discussion:

@JD-Tiger said in Josh Addo Carr Contract Discussion:

Well yes and no. What I said was logical, and every point you made apart from that was imo correct. Each player that we approached, (if indeed we did approach any?) had a choice to either stay, go to us or go elsewhere. The ones that stayed choose to stay. Yes there were a lot of incentives to stay, and they choose those incentives rather than come to us. They could have chosen to forego those incentives, but didn’t.

I think at this stage, and I looked at the numbers a few weeks ago (and club-hoppers specifically today), it’s something like 16 players have gone to new clubs 2020 and 40 have re-signed since 01/Nov/19.

So it’s overwhelmingly tilted towards players not changing clubs. Your starting point is therefore trying to entice players away from their incumbent, which is more challenging than re-signing the players you already have.

You are right that we “missed out” on any player we offered a deal but who chose to stay where they were. And we’ll never know what those numbers are. But also, the data tells you that player transfers are far less common than re-signing.

And it also tells you that Tigers weren’t the only team that “missed out” on players who re-signed - the other 15 clubs did as well!

Furthermore, about 12 of those 16 player transfers are middle to worse footballers. ~6 of them are just 1-year try-out deals like Isaac Luke, Cameron King, Brock Lamb (who is 2 years development).

Ultimately it’s how you interpret “missing out”. I do not think it is flawed to consider this in the context of how many players actually do move and what kind of deals they are moving to.

Very true, putting it like that. I like that.
So, we havent spent the cap cash we would have liked to, yet, and despite us certainly trying, circumstances were against us, so we havent necessarily failed because of a bad trait within us.

I was thinking more along the lines of we should be so good that we could entice them to our club, but that’s a bit fantastical of me.

posted in Contracts read more

@balmain-boy said in Josh Addo Carr Contract Discussion:

@fibrodreaming said in Josh Addo Carr Contract Discussion:

@balmain-boy said in Josh Addo Carr Contract Discussion:

Why pay your backup that much? Especially when other backups like Jennings and Nof are also on that much.

Is Jennings on $450k ? I find that very hard to believe.

400k, nof 450k.

He was leading tryscorer the year before (or right up there) so even though unfortunate thats believable.

posted in Contracts read more

@Strongee said in Josh Addo Carr Contract Discussion:

@JD-Tiger said in Josh Addo Carr Contract Discussion:

All this talk about we didnt miss out on a lot of players as only so many players left their original club and went to another is flawed.

Just because they stayed with their club and didn’t go to another doesnt mean we had no chance at them. Lomax stayed, but we should have still had a go at him, Brimson too. And if we did have a go at them, then we missed out, regardless of whether they choose another new club or their existing club over us.

That is absolutely illogical . Most players will stay with their current club for unders . It’s not just loyalty. It’s knowing the system , knowing role in The system , feeling secure .
So you have to pay overs to get off the starting block . Especially if youre in perpetually no mans land like the tigers . Too good to truely gut the team , but not bad enough to pull a Knights/bulldogs.
It’s also about value and next year as much as tomorrow. If you buy X player on way overs , you now have to commit to that player , and as in the case of teddy and Paps , lose a promising junior because of lack of opportunity.
Investing in youth is the smart play. Breed an environment of loyalty and trust. The storm were able to do this , as , they were lucky to have had a lot of thier ho-hum buys , perform above standard, whilst maintaining relevance . I’m talking about the Matt Orford years by the way.

Well yes and no. What I said was logical, and every point you made apart from that was imo correct. Each player that we approached, (if indeed we did approach any?) had a choice to either stay, go to us or go elsewhere. The ones that stayed choose to stay. Yes there were a lot of incentives to stay, and they choose those incentives rather than come to us. They could have chosen to forego those incentives, but didn’t.

I said this before, but I think it was too early for LM to come to us. We need to do the things you have said, focus on juniors (we are), not pay overs for mediocrity (we are starting not to), start to build as a team and as a unit, and success will come and they will stay (hopefully), then I think we can add the cream like a LM.