Opinion Our Current Rebuild Will Ultimately Fail - Prove Me Wrong

Remove this Banner Ad

You sure his child was on the way? Only turned 1 recently and wasn’t this signed 3 years ago?
Well that might be right but I know it was said at the time it was more about the job security than big dollars. Perhaps it was he'd just recently married his partner and they were looking to start a family. I know the talk was more from a job security view than wanting the big dollars.
 
It's not just player contracts that have been a noose around our neck either.

Extending Nicks early was a decision so bad that even a master wordsmith like Sanders would struggle to find the words to describe it.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Well that might be right but I know it was said at the time it was more about the job security than big dollars. Perhaps it was he'd just recently married his partner and they were looking to start a family. I know the talk was more from a job security view than wanting the big dollars.

lmao come on mate, it's never about the money according to the players and their management.

iirc at the time he just established himself as a consistent best 22 and I feel like most managers would have pushed for a short 2 or 3 year deal and hope Wayne takes his game to the next level so that the next contract would be a big one. Instead he got 5 years, which leads me to think we threw a bit of extra cash in his face and added the extra years. I didn't factor in a kid on the way though, but I can't see that materially effecting what his manager would advise him.
 
lmao come on mate, it's never about the money according to the players and their management.

iirc at the time he just established himself as a consistent best 22 and I feel like most managers would have pushed for a short 2 or 3 year deal and hope Wayne takes his game to the next level so that the next contract would be a big one. Instead he got 5 years, which leads me to think we threw a bit of extra cash in his face and added the extra years. I didn't factor in a kid on the way though, but I can't see that materially effecting what his manager would advise him.
I disagree, a 5 year term means less money than a short term contract for a player.

There was no need to offer him exhorbitant amounts of money, SA born and raised and still to reach his potential.

Of course it suits the agenda of some on this board there's no denying that.
 
I disagree, a 5 year term means less money than a short term contract for a player.

There was no need to offer him exhorbitant amounts of money, SA born and raised and still to reach his potential.

Of course it suits the agenda of some on this board there's no denying that.

Exactly so why would he sign a longer term deal on less money? Because it wasn't on less money, it was on decent money. We projected upside.

If you have a player that you project to be A grade or elite you don't wait til they perform on that level and then get bent over come contract time. You sign them earlier and pony up a bit of extra cash in the short term to entice the deal to get done.
 
Exactly so why would he sign a longer term deal on less money? Because it wasn't on less money, it was on decent money. We projected upside.

If you have a player that you project to be A grade or elite you don't wait til they perform on that level and then get bent over come contract time. You sign them earlier and pony up a bit of extra cash in the short term to entice the deal to get done.
Nope I disagree..
 
Why would he accept a long term low money deal when there was only possible upside on his end. It's illogical.

Yeah we're not going to agree on this one...
It might be less money per year but more overall.

If he'd signed a two year deal at 600K, then blown his knee twice, his next deal is Matt Crouch bargain basement level.

If he signs a 5 year deal at 500K, he's much better off.
 
There were concerns about Sloane at the time. 5 years was pretty surprising to most

And who says Milera is on a relatively cheap deal?

Agreed , I still think Sloane had decided to leave but when he got the foot injury other clubs backed out. Nothing to support that just gut feel of how it was heading and timing.
 
It might be less money per year but more overall.

If he'd signed a two year deal at 600K, then blown his knee twice, his next deal is Matt Crouch bargain basement level.

If he signs a 5 year deal at 500K, he's much better off.

Other way around. A win for the club is less money overall. Salary cap is everything, with the exception of timing differences when you're on the cusp of a flag. Player gets less money overall but the security of a longer term deal.

How many players sign a 5 year deal at Mileras age when he did? We certainly didn't dangle a minimum wage long term contract in front of him, you need to offer a carrot.
 
Why would he accept a long term low money deal when there was only possible upside on his end. It's illogical.

Yeah we're not going to agree on this one...

Upside wasn’t the only possible outcome, just consider the situation he currently finds himself in. He likely wanted a longer contract due to the exact sort of situation that has played out. Now I doubt the terms were bargain basement levels, but I also highly doubt it is as high as you would think.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I disagree, a 5 year term means less money than a short term contract for a player.

There was no need to offer him exhorbitant amounts of money, SA born and raised and still to reach his potential.

Of course it suits the agenda of some on this board there's no denying that.

No club ever chooses or wants to sign for 5 years (or longer). Such deals are always to the advantage of the player

They reflect players leverage. And if the club was levered into 5 years then it’s not unreasonable to think it was for decent coin too
 
No club ever chooses or wants to sign for 5 years (or longer). Such deals are always to the advantage of the player

They reflect players leverage. And if the club was levered into 5 years then it’s not unreasonable to think it was for decent coin too
Sometimes they advantage more than the player. Maybe a business, or a conflict of interest with a board member…
 
I disagree, a 5 year term means less money than a short term contract for a player.

There was no need to offer him exhorbitant amounts of money, SA born and raised and still to reach his potential.

Of course it suits the agenda of some on this board there's no denying that.
Nah, that doesnt stack up. $500k x 5 is more than $600k x 3, plus it's guaranteed. He didnt deserve a 5 year deal, I can only think we had to spend some cap and rolled a couple of years into the one year or something. Or we're just stupid.
 
We've given Sloane, Milera and ROB a combined 14yr contract and what return have we got from that investment? Bugger all.

Best believe Milera and ROB will put in career seasons in their contract year though. Nothing more certain.
2025 will be our year 🥴
 
I’m on the fence with the whole rebuild.

The biggest problem we have is the selection committee, they proved to us for years that they don’t want to focus on youth when we’re near the bottom half of the ladder.

We have players such as Worrell, McAsey who can’t get even get a game. You have TT a very high draft pick who’s been replaced by EH at the current moment. Then to make things even better you have Pedlar, Berry and Schoenberg who aren’t in the guts where they’re best positions are; yet play Crouch and Sloane?

I understand you can’t play youth all in one hit where you need experience to guide them along, but you need to give these players as much playing time as possible.
 
While it didnt result in a win I was really pleased with the changes that were made this week. There was a sense of accountability to it. not enough to say things are better but enough for some hope.

I think the really frustrating thing is that for a club to be successful they have to have 4 things go really well, recruitment (drafting), developing players, good coach and a collective buy in. And while im not a big Nicks fan he has got the buy in and there are some glimpses of player development. but its no where near enough to be successful its just enough to say its better than nothing.

The biggest issue i have is there is next to nothing in the cupboard for the next tilt at a premiership. we have one stand out player who has hit their first year plateau, one developing tall who cant get a game and then some players that try hard but arent game winners. where is the next dangerfield, sloane, tex, gunston, etc. the club hasnt drafted, recruited, or developed the next crop of players. So here we are arguing about second rate players who will never reach an elite standard. FOG, McHenry, Jones, Milera. The blame bounces between recruitment or development, and while it is important to work out where the gaps are either way the result is the same, second rate players that make up a second rate side. all of these players try hard but they are lacking the elite component.

Hopefully in years to come Rachelle, Thillthorpe, Schoenberg, Soligo, Butts, Berry, Pedlar and Mcasey can come through and grab the game by the throat but so far they as collective are struggling to get out of second gear.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top