Anasta 24.10 min
https://youtu.be/-Ly4UtWcy4g?si=FrcQ6McxrMSjS0ic
Watch the latest Anasta podcast-
Straight from the horses mouth, " Parramatta - Ryles, never offered Jonah Pezet a long-term deal" He says Parramatta only ever wanted Pezet for one year.
The conversation was always 1 yrar.
So all the talk about the club being used, and all the cuckold blogs, you can just flush them.
He also says the kids Parramatta have coming through are the succession plan.
Replies
Write him a letter cousin. Go ask him
You reckon. That will stand up in a court of law, your reckoning LB :)
Nah mate, she’s the franchise player. The others were just practice matches.
Right, so if someone said they did something illegal, then a few months later said loud and clear they didn't do it that means they are innocent?
Sorry Chief makes no sense what you are saying. You say do not jump to conclusions if we don't know the real answer yet seem adament in your post that you believe we never wanted Pezet long term? So are you jumping to a conclusion?
What's promoted by his mates got to do with it? You actually think Maitua pressured him into saying Parramatta wanted a long term deal? What does him giving into that pressure do for him and those in that situation? Nothing. Anasta seemed to have let it slip it seems.
Mate, im just asking you which one is correct? Your the one that said the second version is incorrect as Anasta is protecting the Eels
Prove it LB
He is also doing what is best for his client and he is mates with Ryles too. A lot of backlash over the deal, he is coming in saying this was the plan all along with no thought of long term where i am saying there definately was an interest long term and Pezet didn't want it so we decided to go with the one year deal as better than nothing.
Which one is correct? i think pretty self explanatory.
Prove it? Sure https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeI_Ok_9boQ skip to 13:27.
You need proof that a player manager would say whatever it takes to give the perception everyone got what they wanted in a deal ? Not to mention the coach is one of his best mates lol.
Lets look at this scenario , so Chiefs saying ( if I'm understanding correctly) that there was absolutely no knowledge at all the Peasant was wanting a one year deal to bridge his Broncos contract , and we just so happened to waltz in and miraculously offer a 1 year deal.
Talataina and Pezet are 2 different players. Renzo is a run threat with a good short kicking game and slick hands. He's a physical runner but a 5/8. Pezet is a halfback. We have Lincoln Fletcher that we're looking at as the long term replacement. Although Ethan Sanders could be heading out of Canberra given they just signed Coby Black.
Well i know that, just saying no guarentees he works out.
Is Fletcher the one they are looking at more than Talataina?
I don't think they're preferencing either right now. Renzo got an opportunity in NSW Cup last season and given our focus on finding a long-term 5/8 I think he's probably further ahead development-wise. Renzo has been extended to the end of 2028 and Fletcher is on the books until the end of 2027, although I'd expect he gets extended soon.
The position of Ethan Sanders is perhaps more interesting to me. He's one year into a 3 year deal. Sticky originally said he'd get first crack at the 7 with Fogarty leaving, but he's then gone and signed Coby Black for 3 years. So essentially Canberra isn't backing Sanders to be their long term halfback.
Sanders left on very good terms with the Eels and his family remain Eels fans. It was mentioned to me earlier in the year to not be surprised if he finds his way back to Parra kind of like Mitch did.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 5 Next