Mark o'neill
* failed with the get out clauses
* failed with attracting top players
* The Brown contract was a complete stuff up
* Needed Ryles to hold his hand to finally fix development, where previously reserve grade was a holding yard for rejected players
* lost out on recent big name signings
Shane Richardson
* A proven winner
* Helped Souths become champions
Took the Cronulla sharks from perennial losers to grand finalists
* attracted many big names to the Tigers despite being 3 times losers. Jerome Luai, Taylan May ect
* A noted track record of success and attracting big talent.
Make it happen now.
At the moment - we're wasting time and O'neill a dead man walking
Replies
We need to know what's going wrong in the first place, you certainly wouldn't stop someone like Richardson even coming in as a consultant for our recruitment team to learn off.
Richardson has 30 years experience and has been at Cronulla, Penrith, Hull, Souths, Tigers
Have a look at his record and the players he has signed from other clubs.
Jarohme Luai Penrith to Tigers
Sunia Turuva Penrith to Tigers
Terryl May to Tigers
Greg Inglis Melbourne to Souths
Sam Burgess England to Souths
Latrell Mitchell Roosters to Souths
Pinched premiership winning coach coach John Lang Cronulla to Penrith
Preston Campbell Dally M winner to Penrith
Signed representaive half back Paul Green to Cronulla
Yep great write up. Exactly why we need to get Richardson.
The stink around our club as perenial losers....no new head od football can fix that...the only thing that can is winning on the pitch.....at the moment that looks problematic....we become regulars in the finals we get tje elite player.
Further Ryles has surounded himself with proven losers ....
but hey its only Rd 1 ....a win in Brisbane is a must for our season
I know your can't keep them all but not keeping sanders who wins the game for the raiders and buying a reserve grade half in pezet. Is a bit hard to take. Hopefully we don't lose to many from this crop coming through.
Well Sanders path was blocked. By the time he left Brown and Moses still had contracts til 2029 at least. Despite being options they had deals.
It would have been a bigger risk letting Brown or Moses walk to accommodate Sanders.
Who would have foreseen Newcastle offering insane money.
Cannot live in Hindsight.
But that's the thing. Sanders path was not blocked at all. When someone actually looked at Brown's contract he was only contracted until the end of 2025. The club could not have fucked this situation up anymore if they tried. If the R&R team were across the details they could have either solidified Brown's options so he was locked in or locked in Sanders because Brown was leaving.
Sanders and Brown both leaving was ridiculous and straight up incompetence from our R & R team.
It was, as he had control of his contract. If you are Sanders' agent and Parra say here is a 3 year deal til 2027. You see Moses signed til 2028 with options and Brown til 2031 with options. But Canberra have a 3 year deal with Fogarty having one year left. Canberra are the option as way better chance to play sooner. Parra would do a lot to keep Moses and Brown. Again nobody foresaw Brown getting $1.4mil.
I have gone through this so many times and people just look at it now and say path was not blocked. It was. You cannot tell me there is was situation where Parramatta could say to Sanders you'll get game time full-time soon. Added to that if his agent said let Brown or Moses go, they will say no way.
Parra had options in the deal believing he would stay. Hindsight now says "oh we should have kept Sanders" well when he left Brown still had a deal til 2031 and Moses then 2029 by the time Brown made his call.
Parra want to keep Sanders. You go to Brown and say we need you to commit today and take your options off the table. If he hesitates you give him permission to shop around. Either way it needs to get resolved because we have a young half we do not want to let go of.
When Ryles came here one of the first things he did was to solidify Moses' contract to remove options. It can be done.
What you don't do is allow young players to leave and cross your fingers that your current halves choose to stay if they feel like it.
LB not everyone sees it your way that Sanders pathway was blocked. Some serious thoughts and considerations could have been implemented, knowing full well that Mitch and Dylan had options. Sanders literally dosnt debut till right now, history shows he could be starting for us right now.
'There were numerous ways to develop Sanders for that extra year. ie last year, when he went to the raiders his path was blocked as well, but he was sold a vision from Ricky, our recruitment and retention blokes don't really succeeed at doing that type of thing. We could have sold him a vision any vision to develop him last year some more. If he had of stayed he plays now.
Our problem has always been we can't see different pathways in recruitment and retention , just like yourself you refuse to contemplate that his pathway wasn't blocked. And that's fine, but that's the type of thoughts we need removed from recruitment and retention, we must always have insurance in younger guys to commit below 1st grade and we have to show them pathways to first grade.
At the very least we could of kept him, told him Dylan and Mitch had get out clauses, if they did'nt leave for the 26 season we will release you, instead they just went with the flow that Dylan was signed till 3030 or something stupid.
There were ways to keep him, even the vision of Dylan playing lock or something, even the offer of loaning him out like harry grant etc, there were real and serious options that were never explored. Let's not bury our head and say Pathway Blocked , nothing more could of been done, that's why we are not very good at some elements of recruitment, we don't think outside the square at times.
Big difference, Fogarty had a year left on his deal. Moses and Brown, regardless of options or not, had several with no guarantee that either will leave.
Now you say vision of Brown at Lock, well they wouldn't of done that as Brown would have not taken up his option. They wouldn't take the risk of upsetting him and he doesn't take option up.
Well path was blocked as you are saying things like loan which you don't do unless path is blocked?
Now BE I will say a deal like Pezet had yes could have been done.
Im not denying the options were dumb, they bloody were but that's what happened and learn from it.
But also, who is to say right now we wouldn't have a Pezet type issue playing 2 Halfbacks?
Also finally on the vision, the vision we've sold Galvin, Keaon, Barnett and the likes hasn't worked so how would it for Sanders.
I will say yeah a Pezet deal like Melbourne had I admit would have been best course of action though. You can leave if Brown activated his option for 2028.
Blaize on the other hand could have played Centre to stay there was an option there but whoever gave a 19 year old with no NRL games at the time a PO should of been sacked. As keeping Blaize last year problem solved for our 6 moving forward and had that year with Ryles where he would've played 6 for most of the year.
Just thankfully they signed Lorenzo til 2028. I will say when I did the first reply I was like here comes BE in 3, 2, 1.... hahahaha. Respect my man though as can see how far we've come with this argument the first one we were bitter now more civil.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next