Replies

  • I don't think there's much wrong with this to be honest. He can stay at the Roosters, be a premiership contender, or chase some extra dollars and be scrapping to be in the 8. We'd be talking about similar scenarios for the likes of Reed and Papa for us. They'd probably take a little less if it means they're getting to challenge for a comp rather than scrape into the 8.

    Not everything is a conspiracy.

    • This reply was deleted.
      • That's where I'm coming from also Brissy.

      • Because whilst those numbers sound correct I'll bet dollars to donuts that the numbers the NRL have are very different. This is why the NRL needs to publish player wages including registered TPA's. Only when the world can see that Tedesco is actually on the cap for only $600k (hypothetically) can we begin to fix the very obvious inequities in the system. 

        • This reply was deleted.
          • Hang on, I've never said not to publish player salaries, on the contrary I'm all for it, because there is precedent for salaries to be published. IMS, under ASIC regs, the five highest paid executives of any publicly listed company must have their salaries published for shareholder knowledge. 
            This principle also applies to pro athletes. 

            • This reply was deleted.
              • Nup, not moi

              • It must've been Super objecting to salaries being published. However I thought until now it was Brett that'd previously objected to it too Brissy on older threads. 

      • Add to that list for 2022 Paul MOMIROVSKI from the Penrith Panthers premiership winning team.

    • It's just naive to believe the Roosters are actually paying him less.

      He is being paid somewhere, somehow. No money will be left on the table.

  • It truly is a farce. There's just no way a player stays for unders that severe. It's being made up in other ways. Other ways that are undeclared to the NRL. 

    • "soo 100k on this hole Joey, I am a shit golfer, so i may lose"

      Nick to Joey

This reply was deleted.

More stuff to read

Prof. Daz replied to Hell On Eels's discussion Game Day Blog R8 v Manly: Back-to-Back Or Back to Reality? (L33—18)
"Russell was directly responsible for two tries "
22 seconds ago
Prof. Daz replied to Hell On Eels's discussion Game Day Blog R8 v Manly: Back-to-Back Or Back to Reality? (L33—18)
"Anonymous R&R experts always know better. Apparently. "
1 minute ago
Darren Munro replied to Hell On Eels's discussion Game Day Blog R8 v Manly: Back-to-Back Or Back to Reality? (L33—18)
"That's what slater said. A stat flashed up b4 that 73%. You can't win without the ball. The game looks totally different with more ball. They tried their arses off. Fatigue makes cowards of us all."
1 minute ago
Prof. Daz replied to Hell On Eels's discussion Game Day Blog R8 v Manly: Back-to-Back Or Back to Reality? (L33—18)
"Yes, it would have been crazy fo offed Russell overs. "
2 minutes ago
More…