Tucks contract

[RECORDS!]

Heard from someone very close to Shane (blood related, played a few games himself) that Shanes contract for the next 2 years is the reason he is not playing at the moment. Allegedly if Tucky plays 15 or more this year he is guaranteed next years contract, but if he plays less than 15, the tigers have the option to terminate. This was signed last year when Tucky was desperate after we hung him out for trade and there were no takers.

Seems the club is keeping its options well and truly open.

Thoughts?

 

[tugga]

Would not surprise me at all. In fact now that you tell it like that, I believe it.
GWS would want a hard bodied mid, especially after what GC have been up against this year. GC probably went too young to start with. GWS could well do with a few hard bodied mids for a few years. I reckon Tucky would suit their needs quite well.
This sort of thing does happen. Kirk Reynoldson, was at the Newcastle Knights and was left out of the side for the final 4 rounds because if he played one more game, it would have activivated a pay rise and a contract for the following year, when the Knights were going to rid of him. The club was decimated by injury, but still they didn't play him. Was the ony thing to do.

 

[Toadvine]

I think you're on to something Tugga.

Maybe we're eyeing off a pick in the under 17 draft and Tuck could just be our ticket.

 

[Bruce Monteath]

Taking this theory with a big grain of salt....... however if it is true I'd be disappointed with the club.

Grossly unfair to insert a clause like that into a contract and then deny the player a reasonable chance to have it honoured. Especially someone who is busting his gut every week regardless of the level he's playing.

You can say it's a ruthless business but there's also such a thing as fair trade.

 

[Rustof]

Guess that's why he hasn't been playing.

If we were offered a compo pick by GWS for Tuck, i'd take it in a heartbeat.

 

[tigertiger]

sounds like crap to me, he will get plenty of games as the season goes on

 

[beaver fever]

Taking this theory with a big grain of salt....... however if it is true I'd be disappointed with the club.

Grossly unfair to insert a clause like that into a contract and then deny the player a reasonable chance to have it honoured. Especially someone who is busting his gut every week regardless of the level he's playing.

You can say it's a ruthless business but there's also such a thing as fair trade.

Tuck didn't have to sign the contract. There is a very good reason why Tuck isn't playing, better players are ahead of him. His position is taken by Jackson, Foley and Grigg. If one or two of them get injured, he might have a shot.

 

[MightyTiger]

Second round Compo pick for him or they can piss off.

 

[MightyTiger]

To be honest I find that pretty piss weak from the club. Why did we give him 3 years in the first place, clause or no clause? Now we're just short changing him. I'd be extremely disillusioned if I was Tucky. Poor form on this one RFC

So you'd be upset if we traded him for a top20 pick?

Because if the rumour is true then I doubt the club would bother for a 3rd-4th rounder.

 

[THE_GUN]

I would be very very suprised if GWS were looking at tuck,way too old for what they would be looking at. If he was 25-26 maybe ?

 

[ize_]

To be honest I find that pretty piss weak from the club. Why did we give him 3 years in the first place, clause or no clause? Now we're just short changing him. I'd be extremely disillusioned if I was Tucky. Poor form on this one RFC

 

[_RT_]

This is one to keep an eye on as we get towards the end of the year. If Tuck has played 14 games and is in good form and the dreaded leg strikes and he is left out then you can read something in to it, until then I'd be taking it with a grain of salt.

 

[W. Smithers]

I would be very very suprised if GWS were looking at tuck,way too old for what they would be looking at. If he was 25-26 maybe ?

I would have been surprised too, but that's before I saw GC Suns play. After 3 weeks of seeing them having their arse handed to them, GWS might change their thinking on mature players so they're at least competitive next season.

 

[THE_GUN]

I would have been surprised too, but that's before I saw GC Suns play. After 3 weeks of seeing them having their arse handed to them, GWS might change their thinking on mature players so they're at least competitive next season.

I really cant see gws looking to take a 30 yo mid with bad disposal

Wont happen.

 

[delediofan3]

no 1 draft pick. thats all we're accepting. nothing over no 1. okay fine maybe you could slip in pick 2 and 3.
OOOOHHH HECK JUST GIVE US ALL YOUR FIRST ROUNDERS SHEEDY.

 

[Rustof]

I really cant see gws looking to take a 30 yo mid with bad disposal

Wont happen.

Adelaide gave up 2 picks for Tambling. Anything could happen.

 

[Rayzorwire]

Foley is averaging 10% of Tuck's average Centre Bounce clearances from last year (hmmm, why are we getting smashed in the middle? ), half the current side have had worse disposal than Tuck has ever had and are getting it half as often.

I've been pretty wild with the way Tuck's been treated in the past, he's worked his arse off to earn his spot and done everything they've asked, if I find out they're stiffing him on his contract in this disgusting manner then the club won't be getting a cent out of me until the people responsible are gone for good.

Frawley and Campbell particularly treated Tuck disgracefully in his first year at the club, there seems to be a pattern here and it says some very ugly things about the entire organisation.

If this turns out to be true then it will be the last straw for me, I don't want to be associated with people who act like that, let alone sanction their actions by paying their wages.

 

[partycorolla]

Foley is averaging 10% of Tuck's average Centre Bounce clearances from last year (hmmm, why are we getting smashed in the middle? ), half the current side have had worse disposal than Tuck has ever had and are getting it half as often.

I've been pretty wild with the way Tuck's been treated in the past, he's worked his arse off to earn his spot and done everything they've asked, if I find out they're stiffing him on his contract in this disgusting manner then the club won't be getting a cent out of me until the people responsible are gone for good.

Frawley and Campbell particularly treated Tuck disgracefully in his first year at the club, there seems to be a pattern here and it says some very ugly things about the entire organisation.

If this turns out to be true then it will be the last straw for me, I don't want to be associated with people who act like that, let alone sanction their actions by paying their wages.

I think Rayzor that most Richmond people would agree that Tuck is the best clearance player at our club right now (by some way). Foley used to have lots of spectacular clearances but hasn't spent huge amounts of time in the middle this year. Spent most of the Hawks game coming in off a wing (trying to get miles into him???).

Surely this is not happening is it? If it is, then it is a disgraceful way to run a football club proven by the fact that the NRL do it.

 

[partycorolla]

I would have been surprised too, but that's before I saw GC Suns play. After 3 weeks of seeing them having their arse handed to them, GWS might change their thinking on mature players so they're at least competitive next season.

I agree with this.... I hope we keep him and play him until then. If we don't get offered anything for him or they don't want him, I hope he stays on our list. I think he is an important component of our young team at the moment (albeit he isn't in the team) and will be vital in doing a lot of in and under work as the season rolls on. Here's hoping he gets a game this week..

 

[tigerT]

Taking this theory with a big grain of salt....... however if it is true I'd be disappointed with the club.

Grossly unfair to insert a clause like that into a contract and then deny the player a reasonable chance to have it honoured. Especially someone who is busting his gut every week regardless of the level he's playing.

You can say it's a ruthless business but there's also such a thing as fair trade.

agree, appalling if true - everybody deserves a fair go

 

[_RT_]

Interesting to see people up in arms about this possibly happening to Tuck, but barely a word was uttered when it was appearing to happen to McMahon, in fact I believe nearly every poster was happy to see it happen.

 

[tigerT]

Interesting to see people up in arms about this possibly happening to Tuck, but barely a word was uttered when it was appearing to happen to McMahon, in fact I believe nearly every poster was happy to see it happen.

Different types of players/efforts, different contract situation, nothing alike.

 

[bigstyletiger]

Personally I was surprised when Tuck was given a two year contract and my first reaction was CC was not on the ball. Think the two year contract with an option for us is a win for us. GWS would be mad not to take him. He will fill a role for them like Daniel Harris is doing for GC and after two/three seasons with GWS he will be ready for retirement and therfore not clog up their list.

With the interests of developing players for a tilt at the premiership Tucky should not be playing in our side unless there are injuries to one of Cotch, Martin, Jackson or Foley therefore a two year contract would have been remiss of CC and the RFC.

 

[bigstyletiger]

Personally I was surprised when Tuck was given a two year contract and my first reaction was CC was not on the ball. Think the two year contract with an option for us is a win for us. GWS would be mad not to take him. He will fill a role for them like Daniel Harris is doing for GC and after two/three seasons with GWS he will be ready for retirement and therfore not clog up their list.

With the interests of developing players for a tilt at the premiership Tucky should not be playing in our side unless there are injuries to one of Cotch, Martin, Jackson or Foley therefore a two year contract would have been remiss of CC and the RFC.

 

[ize_]

Interesting to see people up in arms about this possibly happening to Tuck, but barely a word was uttered when it was appearing to happen to McMahon, in fact I believe nearly every poster was happy to see it happen.

Are you saying McMahon had an clause in his contract that said if he played a certain amount of games he was entitled to an extra year? Because I think that is the issue here, that the club made a stupid decision 2 years ago and are now shortchanging Tuck to cover their arses.