Parramatta will move away from offering player options as part of future contract negotiations as it emerged that struggling NRL clubs are each paying an average of $1.25 million per season to rivals to offload out-of-favour footballers.
The Eels are preparing to usher in a new era under incoming coach Jason Ryles, who has just finished his commitments as an assistant coach at Melbourne. Ryles’ priority is to refreshen the Eels staff and roster, along with the retention of Blaize Talagi.
The talented teen has been offered a three-year deal and the opportunity to replace Clint Gutherson as fullback.
Talagi is expected to meet with his agent to discuss the Parramatta offer and interest from clubs including the Dragons and Knights.
Talagi is on the open market after knocking back an option in his contract to stay put, with several of his teammates having similar clauses in their favour. The Eels have drawn criticism for giving eight of their stars an “option” in their contract, the majority of which are in the favour of the player.
The practice has clouded the long-term future of their biggest assets, halves Dylan Brown and Mitchell Moses, as well as other key members of the squad.
Few NRL players are contracted as long as Brown, whose deal could tie him to Parramatta until the end of 2031. However, the Kiwi international can decide in early 2025 whether he wants to leave or trigger an option to remain for the 2026-27 seasons. Even if he stays, the speculation over Brown’s future will soon ramp up again - he will need to make a call in early 2027 whether to stay beyond then.
Moses, meanwhile, will remain in blue and gold until 2026, before deciding whether to take up options for the following seasons.
While there has been ongoing speculation about which contracted players Ryles will move on, only Ryan Matterson and Maika Sivo have so far been told they can look elsewhere. Both have taken up options to remain on the books, meaning Parramatta will have to pay some of their freight to make them a financially attractive option for a rival.
Another big name, centre Will Penisini, has an option in his favour beyond next season, while Shaun Lane and Haze Dunster have mutual options in their deals.
In the future, Parramatta is expected to move towards “vanilla” contracts to ensure players don’t have the whip hand.
“You always need to be able to manage your roster to maintain your ability to make decisions and not be paralysed,” said Eels chief executive Jim Sarantinos.
“We always need to make sure we have a very strong focus on that. If that means, in the future, limiting the number of player options - particularly the number of player options that come up at the same time - then that’s what we will do.”
Whether the Eels will find takers for Matterson and Sivo - and whether other players will be tapped on the shoulder - remains to be seen. Moving them on will come at a cost, one that has been onerous on clubs at the bottom of the ladder.
According to an NRL benchmarking document disseminated to all clubs, the bottom four teams spent an average of $1.243 million each in “freight”, the amount paid to a rival to get them off the books. That contrasts with the $479,000 that a top-four team paid on average to shift an unwanted player.
While Ryles will require time to shape a roster of his choosing, Talagi’s signature remains a priority.
“Blaize and his family know how deeply we care for him,” Sarantinos said.
“We would love him to be at the club long term. We think he has a big future, and we believe that is with our club.”
One Eel set to move on is Matt Arthur. The son of sacked coach Brad Arthur has asked for permission to speak to other clubs and Parramatta haven’t stood in his way.
“While we would love to see him stay at the Eels, we understand the unique circumstances involved with this request and our decision to grant permission to negotiate with other clubs is based on compassionate grounds,” Sarantinos said.
Replies
You always need to be able to manage your roster to maintain your ability to make decisions and not be paralysed,” said Eels chief executive Jim Sarantinos.
“We always need to make sure we have a very strong focus on that. If that means, in the future, limiting the number of player options - particularly the number of player options that come up at the same time - then that’s what we will do.”
How about ZERO options Jim???... What a shitty form of negotiation..all the cards stacked in favour of the players.. club needs to move on MON asap.
Why did we move TOWARDS player options in the first place?
Too much management waffle from Jim here - he says a lot of words and explains nothing. I'm all for controlling the narrative, but if you're not going to share anything, just don't talk to the media. Otherwise if we feel that we've made a mis-step - speak up and own it. It could have been as simple as:
"We are encumbered by our previous strategy to entertain too many player options - this hasn't worked. Going forward we are changing this to keep our team configuration more flexible and able to adapt with the game."
The reason we shifted there is due to weak and poor negotiation skills. When the time came to know when to hold em we folded em. Prettty much after you've nutted out the best price you can offer , instead of holding ground , Oneill threw in the out option to get the signiture done. He shit the bed. This is what happens when you have inexperienced heirwchy that measures your performance on autographs and media announcements and not long term benifets and principles. Perfect example of someone in a role having the paperwork to say your can negotiate without the experience in doing it. Once he blinked first with one player , it was feeding time at the zoo for managers.
Oneils tactic , off er them as much money as our rivals and give them a player option . Players have zero risk on their end , they're getting paid top coin, if they lose form or get injured they're covered , and if they improve and can ask more money before their contracts if they literally have no contract to honour. It's a one way contract pretty much, there is no upside for the club at all other then doofus managed to get their signiture. It's become standard procedure now when signing with Parramatta that there's a player option. It's a thing only weak clubs need to do. And we wernt a weak club until we started inserting them.
It is the difference between having someone who's there for the paycheque and not the love of the club. If Oneill loved the club , on principal he'd have said no champ , you're in or you're not. But he's an idiot and couldn't give a fuck . So you want a player option ? You betcha , just sign here.
it's like when you go to a car years to buy a new car , and yore at the stage of you're buying it anyways , but you're pinging the guy for the extras . You'll take the window tint , and maybe ask for the fake paint protection , but a time comes when he says " you've got me for all I can give you " and you buy it anyways even though you know deep down he has a little more up his sleeve. Then it comes to principal , do I want to look like a cockhead and ask for the stupid helium tyre fills just for the sake of asking for something shit I don't want, and ruin future opportunities with old mate ? . Oneill doesn't know where to hold firm as he knows he has the player option to offer and every player managers a dickhead that'll ask. He has no passion for the history of the club , so he'll just offer an out to get his job seemingly done.
This - so well put Wiz.
Since we do not use TPA's it is something we have used to get players over the line to sign with us, giving them a tiny bit more control. I think options can be useful, but we have used them too much and on big players. For example, Josh Hodgson's option deal was actually a smart one. Having an option for his second season was a must. Turns out he medically retired anyway but that what in favour of us. Brown's on the other hand is completely in his favour and we are at the mercy of what he wants to do.
I think options can work in some instances but we relied on them way too much and has backfired massively.
Yes - inexperienced people here who are not parra people; little understanding of the club and again we have no strong DNA that shines through. This must be sorted.
You only need to look at the players who have been consistent since 2022, and there are not too many. I get it that Moses has been injured this year but good teams have players who step up; we didn't have this.
The club hired ONeill, when they could have asked some ex parra people (Sterlo for example, even Smithy) for advice. Do we hear about Melb / Easts and Penrith having these issues? No, as they draw a line and thats it.
We have been allowed to be picked off like a carcass by Hyenas. Its embarrassing and this after the cap issues of 2016/17. Prozenko who wrote this article I believe is a Parra fan too, and surely he would be shaking his head.
We will never know for 100% what went on between BA / O'Neill and the like but it all seems to point to the issue of some players being given bloody good options at the expense of the club. WE need players who want to play for the bue and gold; otherwise no deal.
This sounds like management is looking to overhaul the contract negotiation strategy. To me that would need to include the people responsible for all the strange contracts we have now. It's great that the club seems to now be committed to best practice, but we can't stop there. Everything we do from here on needs to be best practice. Results on the field will naturally follow, and this is how the successful clubs operate.
It's unbelievable to say the club is stirring away from options and still backing the likes of MON and Rodgers who are ultimately responsible for putting these contracts together - ,a closer look is required at Jim and Sean who have corporate experience but are not savy enough to step in earlier and put an end to the ridiculous use of player options
Finally there seems to be a bit of pressure put on O'Neil firstly from Buzz calling him out, now this bloke. Hopefully it keeps up and all the knobs running this place are highlighted as a hindrance on the club and get moved on
Heading of the article could have been "Parramatta may have uncovered a brain".
Der... player options (when largely in the players favour) to the degree we have been offering under MON (and this Board... despite all Fat Jim's waffle now) are proof of a number of things - poor culture, zero negotiation skills, no recognition of history / brand, general weakness and no desire or ability to develop a team of players who want to play for the club / jersey. All of which is avoidable.
Any chance Jim & co might use MON as a long scapegoat here and move him on?
Structure fair deals, fair values, fair contract length... and hold the line. If they want to play for the club, they will sign. As soon as it becomes a media circus... withdraw. Drawn out... withdraw. Dutch auction - withdraw. Player holding a club to ransom... withdraw. You want to play here - sign here... but make your mind up quick or we're moving on. Sure... there will always be a degree of negotiation... but get to it quickly, and via smaller movements in $ (due to not low-balling to start with) or movements by a year in contract term... that's it. Short and sharp. What do you want... right, this is what we can do and why... your call - make your decision asap.
That said, you don't cut off your nose top spite your face... there will always be the odd exception based on a generational talent or a specific / significant status of the club / roster at a point in time... but they are exceptions... not norms. Become the "we don't f**k around at the negotiating table" club.
Over time, it will become a squad full of people who want to play for this club... culture will follow... a mindset of taking unders to keep the team together will follow etc. We're a long way from that now... but we can get there.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next