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
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.
haha all good.
We'll also be looking for a new ceo next year too won't we as JS has done 8 years on the Parra board and by constitution 9 is the most they can stay on it.Please correct me if I'm wrong.
MoN why bother getting rid of him now why have we just realised he isn't the right guy for the job.JR is also has a big bearing in recruitment he's the trump card to get the talent in the door also.MoN has never been the answer unfortunately and yes we should be trying to upgrade all across the club.
Sarantinos is not on Eels board I believe so he doesn't fit within the 9 year rule. It said in the constitution that members of the board serve 3 years and can serve an additional 2x3 year terms, so 9 years.
But Sarantinos is not elected of course so I believe he can stay as long as possible.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next