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.
Oh Chief go away. You constantly tried to get me with a gotcha moment, weren't able to and now pulling a part details of my comments to try again.
Pity you don't have Mick here to fight your battles and call people names anymore.
I have intel on Lomax and the source was pretty spot on. How about yours in the past, remember Galvin? Saying he was always going to the Dogs and turns out i corrected you about Penrith wanting him first and had proof too?
That's a gotcha moment. Your one eyed affair for Ryles. BA could not do a single thing right and Ryles cannot do a single thing wrong. It seems, as MeeIk pointed out you lean towards things that suit your narrative. Supporting Ryles in evey little thing he does and saying it is genious justifies your hatred and criticism of BA.
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?
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 6 Next