So this has been stressful news or even annoying news to Eels fans with Canterbury trying pry Mahoney off us. It makes sense Canterbury have signed alot of pieces to a puzzle that has been missing for years now, though their is one massive piece left, a Hooker. Now i could argue that they actually need an organising half as Burton and Averillo are basically more ball running halves but that is a different story, fact of the matter is Canterbury have nothing at Hooker, Marshall-King is fine but is injury prone and is at most a stop gap.
However, does this meeting mean Mahoney is gone? not exactly. It could very well be the case, though i highly doubt Mahoney has made his decision, even admitted in the article that he is going to make his decision in coming weeks after a meeting with Parramatta. That's the big part (MEETING WITH PARRAMATTA). So Mahoney does want to stay, but for the right deal. Now could this meeting be a ploy to kick Parramatta up the back side to prompt them to up their deal and/or talks with Reed? it is very plausible. Is Mahoney interested in going to Canterbury? i think if they offer him good money then of course as they are an up and coming team.
One issue for Canterbury is apparently they have offered 600K, now look at their roster. Burton, Thompson, Cotric, Addo-Carr, Pangai Junior, Allen, Naden, Burns. All these signings, most of them over 500k a year in 2023, 600K for Mahoney i believe is their bare maximum, if they are to go more then they are more likely having to move on from a player in 2023 but it is easier said then done and not guarenteed. Canterbury have money left but not enough to blow Parramatta completley out of the water. Had they offered say 800K then i think it is done there on the spot with Mahoney saying what is offered and Parramatta wishing him well. But it is not that, nowhere near leading to Parramatta being able to counter to a deal that is either a little bit less, on par or a little bit more.
Let's say the overall figure is 600K then Parramatta (if they wanted to keep Reed, which i think they do) would go between 570-620K max. incentives involved including Origin etc. Then the length is involved, this current Parramatta does not like offering more than 3 years, Reed has been offered 4. Now i believe Parra would go the approach of if you want 4 years you have to take around 580K, if you want money instead take 3 years for around 620K. It is fair and not breaking the bank, putting the leveredge on Parramatta and not Mahoney.
What do i think will happen? Well if Parramatta are to sign Mahoney i believe he would be talking to them either today or tomorrow about the deal, Parra would have an idea of what they offer max as a worst case scenario and be prepared to offer him something as soon as today. If he was to stay i think an announcement would be made by the end of the week. The longer this drags the more likely he is to move to Canterbury.
It seems location was not the thing that is was made out to be that he wanted to move back home to QLD, nah he wants money and i think wants to stay at Parramatta, if moving back to QLD was his big thing he would have taken 500K or tried to bump it up to 550K with the Dolphins or Broncos.
I think Mahoney will stay but the possibility of him leaving is growing each week nothing signed.
Replies
A+u=(4+3)+(5+2)=a+u=(7,7)+a_u=(a1+u1). There ,does that make it easier.
I think he'll stay, but I must admit I don't understand the clubs reluctance to offer longer term deals for our playmakers. These guys are the keys to success, and losing any of them, particularly Mahoney woukd be crippling. I understand wanting to do shorter deals for other positions, but your playmakers are your exception, they make everyone else better.
Come on Mark, get it done.
It means you're not locked in for long term either way. It gives you flexibility with the cap, it allows you to move their price up or down. Likewise, it's easier for them to argue for upgrades and extensions. You sign a five year deal then you could end up in a position where you have to triple their contract for their next deal, rather than gradually increase it across two contract periods. The player could also get annoyed, thinking they're undervalued or, on the flip side, they get injured for an extended period or are severely out of form and you have an annoying drain on your salary cap.
That's all what if's Super, and if the club is in constant communication with the player and his manager, none of that is insurmountable.
Brett, given that a couple of the eels players have a PO as well as CO, on their signings, a 3year deal with CO for 4th could be an option for Reed, as well as his age, as those being offered short term extensions tend to be with older players, but RCG's resigning tends to shoot that down.
The only stumbling block for a long contract could be his shoulder problems, hopefully though, the clubs medico's have remedied that area. From what I remember of how he done his shoulder in this time was his attempt in a clutch tackle with that arm, which pulls the arm out and affects the joints, also can pull the rotator cuff away from the bone. I have had my right one wrecked, but not worrying me now, however the left one has now gone & it needs surgery on it.
Agree, injuries to Reeds shoulder could have some serious implications going forward and perhaps the Eels know more about this than the bulldogs.
I agree Brett this is just ridiculous
we all know reed ( if he continuous on his trajectory depending on injuries ) will prob be the next Buderus - I am gonna be BEYOND pissed if he is lost to someone else
there will be shit in a boxes deluxe for all !!!!😡😡
Reed should be remaining loyal to the club that has really blossomed his career.
Brett, it's because they obviously have a much different opinion to you on Guthersons potential that far down the track. Not only does our club, but virtually every expert in the inner sanctums of the NRL community disagree with you on whether he's worth the risk of signing for longer than he's been offered. . Not sure why you are so hell bent on them being less qualified on judging a players worth than you ? You yourself said the market will set the players worth. Well he's worth what he's been offered it seems. How long does he need to be out there expressing his desires and not getting the offer he wants before you admit he and yourself just might be over estimating his value ?
If it was just Gutho I might agree with you, but clearly this is a blanket policy. Now I'm not saying the policy is wrong in principle, but as I said, playmakers are rare and therefore there has to be some willingness to budge on such principles.
That being said, Mark O'Neill has proven himself an astute negotiator, so I'll trust that he knows hat he's doing.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 8 Next