- Rising Apa Twidle will leave the Parramatta Eels at the end of 2026 after agreeing to a three-year deal with the new Perth Bears (joining in 2027).
- The deal is in a cooling-off period, but he’s expected to go ahead with it because the offer is significantly better.
- Twidle burst onto the scene with a standout debut (2 tries in 3 minutes), which attracted strong interest from multiple clubs.
- Parramatta reportedly only offered a low-value development contract (~$80k), while Perth provided better financial security and opportunity.
- A key factor: the Bears are offering him a chance to play in the halves, rather than being used as a utility/backline option.
- He becomes one of the early signings helping build the Bears’ inaugural squad under coach Mal Meninga.
Bottom line:
Parramatta unearthed a serious talent, but underpaid and under-positioned him—Perth stepped in with money, role clarity, and long-term security, and likely pinched him.
Replies
Agreed and that is the thing Daz, these guys are quite young - and I know Apa is about 21; i would rather have developed him albeit with Lorenzo, than bring in Pez, who is here for a year. Blaize started in our team in 24, when we had some issues. I was undecided about Pez tbh and would have hoped he played for the year but even his defence was at times avg. All young halves will be worked over, as Saints will know this weekend with Reed starting at half. I get we cannot keep them all, but as some have said you would prefer to keep a developed junior.
But it seems memories are conveniently short, in all these critiques of club mgmt. Talagi accepted a 3-year offer from Panthers in July 2024. Reports at the time show Eels had offered a multi-year deal and said he was their long-term fullback. Talagi had Gutho in front of him at FB and Brown in front of him at 5/8. BA had just been sacked in May 2024 and Luai had announced he was leaving Panthers at end of 2024. If I'm Talagi I'm opting for Panthers, a much clearer path to 6 and more stability and current success at team-level.
With all the talk inferring straight from players staying or going or switching to Eels or not, to club mgmt and R&R, I'm just saying it's just not credible to imagine there is a deterministic and linear relation from club mgmt to outcomes of all those choices.
The Talagi example shows so many other factors involved. The more examples we dig into the more complicated those outcomes probably become.
It does and we are all guilty of being fickle at times Daz.....I still come back to the club with their D Brown contract and this for me messed up the backflow of players coming through. Talagi made a call i am assume on the better organised club top 8 / 4 chances and also development.
Russell had a stellar year in 25 and we were keeping him but Perth got in a good offer as they should as they had no-one nd need to pay more.
It would not be an easy job at all with the lists and kids in Flegg / Reggies but I feel the club pre-Ryles made a bad call on the Brown contract, and I satnd by that and ask we he did to be offered that.
Mitchy, I guess the question to ask about the player options that Brown used to run to Knights was why they were offered? I read the club saying that there had been no player options in their contracts since May 2023. When Brown exercised his player option, only Moses and Penisini remained with player options, and they each re-committed (Moses to 2029 and Penisini until 2028?).
Obviously these player options were considered good-will incentives to the players to remain. Brown screwed the Eels with his but Moses and Penisini didn't, but regardless, they're gone now. Which sounds like a good idea, because as you note with Brown, his contract basically locked the Eels pathways re: 5/8 but left Dylbag$ the option to both leave and screw the pathways-planning up. Double blow!
I just personally don't find much value in scapegoating the club when the Eels turn in in a stinker. As we saw with the amazing Dogs result, where do the critics turn then?! Turning to the club (scapegoating) might just obscure the real issue: why can the Eels get thumped by the cellar-dwelling Titans one week then thump the table-topping Dogs the next? The club remains the same across those two opposing outcomes.
If the dependent variable (win or lose games) changes while the independent variable (the club) remains constant (one week to the next), that indicates that the change (win or lose) is not (directly and/or solely) caused by the independent variable (the club). Hence why I say that inferring from pathetic loss directly to the club is scapegoating, because saying the solution to changing the result is simply change at the club level fails basic experimental protocol.
Nobody ever leaves because of a player option. They only stay because of them, e.g. Matterson. They are insurance in case the player is badly injured in an off contract year. In most cases the player won't activate the PO even if he stays at his club because it is generally below market value. Instead he will negotiate a new contract extension (i.e. 'remove the PO', unless the new contract includes another one).
Dylan Brown left because he was off contract, not because he had a PO. Just like Sean Russell. If Brown had stayed it wouldn't have been due to the PO (unless he was badly injured and there was limited demand at the time). He also would never have signed his ten year contract without POs unless it was for massive overs, like he did at the Knights. A ten year contract means the player gives up all bargaining leverage for a decade while the salary cap keeps creeping upwards. This is why he signed a three year contract with several years worth of (below market value) player options. The options were only going to be taken up in an emergency.
Poupou, can you explain how Dylan Brown in early 2025 was "off contract"?
Brown had a contract with the Eels until end of 2031, with I believe two player options. The first permitting him to leave at end of 2025 IF he notified the club by Round 10 of 2025. If he did not notify by Round 10 of 2025 the next player option was again a notification by Round 10 of 2027.
That seems "contracted with clauses" as opposed to "off contract"?
An example of off contract as far as I understand off contract is Ryan Matterson. Contracted until end of 2026 and no offer for further contract on table as far as media has reported to date. I thin Junior Paulo too? Etc
The 2026-2031 stuff was player options. His contract ended at the end of 2025, meaning he was free to talk to rivals in November 2024. The options only came into play if he activated them, and he didn't. Matterson's contract also ended in 2025 but he activated his PO, extending him until 2026.
Here's how the RLPA explains it:
"Options do not officially form part of a term of a contract until they are exercised, which is why player options are not made public until that point."
Policy Positions & FAQs - Contracting Windows - RLPA
The problem is that it was unclear that POs should not be made public until the RLPA complained in March last year, probably in response to growing fan backlash:
“Regrettably, we are concerned about the publication of player contract options in recent media reporting,” the RLPA email said.
“Currently, all clubs can request an ‘off contract list’, which sets out the nature of options players have. To be clear, these are provided in the strictest of confidence. Frustratingly, this information has leaked to the media, resulting in commentary on our members’ private employment arrangements. From the way this article has been reported, it is clear that a copy of this list was provided to the media.
“We are concerned with privacy breaches and have raised our concerns with the NRL, with the NRL sharing our concerns. If the individual playing contracts cannot be held in confidence, we will seek to limit the disclosure of such information to maintain the rights of our members.”
NRL 2025: NRL removes player contract information for its own websi...
Hi Poupou, thanks for providing the RLPA definition:
"Options do not officially form part of a term of a contract until they are exercised, which is why player options are not made public until that point."
This very helpfully gives us a common point of reference. Now, I am not a lawyer, so any lawyers especially contract law folks feel free to correct, but I don't interpret the above provision as OFF contract IF player options exist.
As the definition states, the options are not part of the contract until exercised. If Dylan did NOT exercise the option to talk to and accept a Knights offer, Dylan would have remained contracted to the Eels under the terms of his contract (pay scale out to 2031). That is, not exercising the option would have seen him remain on contract.
Again, I'm not a lawyer. But I don't see how Brown was off contract if the option is not part of the term of his contract (until 2031) unless exercised.
Unless a lawyer can explain why that RLPA clause means off contract, isn't the middle ground position that we agree the player options were stupid? I then think he broke the spirit of his contract by exercising the option. You appear to suggest he was off contract prior to exercising the option?
He's off contract until/if he activates the player option. The PO only comes into play if he takes it up, as the RLPA statement makes clear. It's not an option to leave or speak to other clubs. That's a given, because the player is off contract. The option is to stay, regardless of whether the club wants him to stay (see Matterson). If the player doesn't want to stay for that amount, he doesn't exercise the option, even if the club wants to keep him. If they want to keep him, they need to offer a new (better) contract.
Poupou, you are talking yourself in circles.
1) The RLPA definition defines player options as NOT part of the terms of the contract.
2) Brown's player options were options for him to leave and/or ask for more money. Literally.
3) Browns contract expired in 2031. If he did NOT exercise the player option between Nov 2024 and R10 2025, he stays at the Eels on the deal he and the club signed with it's salary set out until 2031
4) The same circumstance would have apparently arisen again Nov 2027 to R10 2028. Again if Brown did NOT exercise his player option, he stays at the Eels until 2031 on the salary he and the club agreed to in writing (unless they agreed to more money).
What I will say next is premised on my claim that you are unable to deny the truth of claims 1-4 above. Given 1-4, my conclusion is that rather than being off contract until he exercised the player option(s), Brown was contracted unless he exercised the player option(s).
It's always possible my conclusion is wrong. But I am saying if my conclusion is wrong, as best I can tell you would have to show one or more of the claims 1-4 above is wrong.
Recall the point of querying the claim Brown was off contract? I queried that because of the subsidiary claim that Brown left because he was off contract, and not because of the player option. That premise is obviously then used to suggest the club did not secure its marquee 6 at all. But that's wrong. Brown left because he exercised his player option, not because he was off contract (it expired in 2031). The club had misplaced trust that treating him well (permit some flexibility) would be reciprocated, but Brown screwed them.
-
17
-
18
-
19
-
20
-
21
of 23 Next