Intent on leaving: Campbell-Gillard closes on switch to Sydney rivals
The forward wants out at the Eels.
Reagan Campbell-Gillard is reportedly 'intent' on leaving the Parramatta Eels at the end of the 2024 NRL season, with the St George Illawarra Dragons still the front runner for his signature.
The forward, who has statistically had his worst season to date in blue and gold since his switch from the Penrith Panthers at the end of 2019, is contracted to the Eels for 2025 on a deal that is believed to be worth around $750,000 per year.
That said, the Eels have made it clear they won't stand in the way of the former State of Origin prop if he can find a contract elsewhere.
Linked with a number of clubs, it's understood the St George Illawarra Dragons remain the front-runner for the services of the 31-year-old.
The Sydney Morning Herald are reporting the Eels are keen to see him off their own books as Jason Ryles looks to launch a rebuild of the embattled blue and gold, but it's also understood they won't contribute any salary to see him head anywhere else.
That has left the Dragons pondering their options, with the club also wanting to offer Campbell-Gillard a two-year deal. It's understood the prop wants three years, but the club are hesitant to go that far given his form this year.
The Dragons have made no secret of their desire to sign a forward. Flanagan confirmed they have a spot and salary for a player of that description even before the potential releases of Jack Bird, Mikaele Ravalawa and Blake Lawrie, with the club also linked to Corey Horsburgh and Daniel Saifiti.
Campbell-Gillard would be the latest in Shane Flanagan's push to bring experienced figures to the struggling joint-venture, with the Dragons also signing Valentine Holmes and Damien Cook for next season.
The club currently sit in eighth place, but could need to win both of their remaining games to play finals rugby league this year, owing to a dreadful for and against.
Replies
RCG was on record saying he was a massive BA fan. I believe the quote was something like I would die for him. It doesn't surprise me he is intent on leaving
RCG is 'intent' on leaving because he is 'intent' on getting a three year contract, for which he knows he won't be getting at Parra.
I think RCG can still add a lot.
But we have plenty of forwards at 30 or above years of age and we need to replenish that. RCG can be offloaded more quickly than a Lane.
Also the game we need to adapt should be less prop/forward heavy and power game heavy. So the likes of Lane and Ofahengaue can carry us for now.
I think we need the money to get a quality winger and hooker hence why we are offloading Sivo and RCG. But looks like Ryles prefers Paulo over RCG.
I actually agree with Ryles there.
I think Paulo off the bench can still be a powerful option. Yes I think we should modernize our game but having Paulo's offloads and his burst of energy for 15-20 minutes can add to that.
I don't understand how Ryles can rate Paulo over RCG. His stats are worse that RCGs and he is on more money. Paulo played well when he slims down with his boxing training but them blimps out during the season. I cannot believe Ryles with this one, but he is the new coach and it is on him if his decisions prove to be wrong. Likewise, praises to him if his vision works.
This....boggles the mind.
I think its just pure economics and cap management - shopping Jr Paulo around is a tough sell compared with RCG - if the dragons take on RCG contract in full it's a win for Ryles and the club, although RCG won't publicly say he wants out, on the few occasions interview it appears he wants to leave
I wouldn't say prefers, RCG was easier to move on. Paulo has 2 years left with roughly $950k a year as there are ratchet clauses causing the salary to rise. RCG one year $750k is a lot easier to move on.
Plus, moving on a captain also is not a great thing to get players on your side. Not saying i agree with it but it is the way it is.
If we can't move Paulo along due to his contract being unfavourable, then the person responsible for signing off on the contract must be moved along.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next