Opinion Unprofessionalism Culls Rebuild

[BondiBulldog]

Gus Gould has it right. You don’t/shouldn’t win competitions by trying to buy players. You should develop juniors, have a strong feeder system and then as the great Joey Johns says, there should be cash breaks to ensure you can hold onto the talent developed.
The last decade has been about buying players
When a team has a culture that develops and nurtures winners, like the Storm, they don’t have to pay overs when the rare time comes that they need to buy coverage in a position. I heard something the other day where the last time the Storm purchased a ‘marquee’ player before Xavier Coates, it was Michael Crocker.
We can talk about the ‘war chest’ all day long but that’s not going to deliver us a premiership. It might slip us into the finals but it won’t beat the top 6 teams running around right now. If we buy Brandon Smith, and don’t get me wrong - he’s a great player - but we will pay him $900K per season and he simply not worth that. If we go for Finucane, and let’s not forget we got rid of him to the Storm when he was mediocre and they turned him into a force of nature - we will offer him $2m for 3 seasons.
Offloading DWZ was the right move. Not because it’s smart to throw $400K in the bin to watch him play for another team, but because he’s not worth $800K per season and should never have been signed for that in the first place.
Once we develop a culture of winning and bringing through juniors as we did when Chris Anderson and Bullfrog Moore were around, we will have to either work with what we have or wait for the right players at the right price.

At this stage I couldn’t care how we win comps. I’d argue that the roosters bought back to back comps. Keary, Cronk, Teddy, Crichton etc

I feel Barrett’s plan is to spend the salary cap on good nsw cup players with a lot of potential.
Where in theory you should get a 30 man squad of Flanagan’s, Naden, Waddell
Etc for around 3m not 10m.

 

[Grunthos]

Reading the comments here only reinforces the fact that if the backroom are plodders then the team will be as well.
Hopefully, things seem to have changed...

 

[Malla]

A lot of what Dean Pay was doing was buying the best players he had on the market to win games and get him another contract to coach the Dogs. Basically he couldn't give 2 fucks about the rebuild, he wanted to save his own ass first.

You could probably say the same about Des tbh. Did not care about the club or the future of the club, back ended a bunch of contracts with a win now mentality.

 

[Cappuccino]

A lot of what Dean Pay was doing was buying the best players he had on the market to win games and get him another contract to coach the Dogs. Basically he couldn't give 2 fucks about the rebuild, he wanted to save his own ass first.

You could probably say the same about Des tbh. Did not care about the club or the future of the club, back ended a bunch of contracts with a win now mentality.

Agree RE Des, Des' strategy came so close to paying off though. We win those 2 comps, and teams would have been banging down the door to take Tolman, Eastwood etc off our hands.. lol

 

[wendog33]

I have to say this board does seem vastly different from the previous two boards.

Dib got us into this mess

Lyn and Chris Anderson were all talk and added to the mess.

This board is cleaning it up

Waddle, Flanno, Allen.

 

[Mattreneeandgus]

A lot of what Dean Pay was doing was buying the best players he had on the market to win games and get him another contract to coach the Dogs. Basically he couldn't give 2 fucks about the rebuild, he wanted to save his own ass first.

You could probably say the same about Des tbh. Did not care about the club or the future of the club, back ended a bunch of contracts with a win now mentality.

Dean Pay was only ever going to be a fill in, unless he surprised everyone and got amazing results, he was never going to keep the job, surely he knew that

 

[Howie B]

At this stage I couldn’t care how we win comps. I’d argue that the roosters bought back to back comps. Keary, Cronk, Teddy, Crichton etc

I feel Barrett’s plan is to spend the salary cap on good nsw cup players with a lot of potential.
Where in theory you should get a 30 man squad of Flanagan’s, Naden, Waddell
Etc for around 3m not 10m.

Yep they bought well and I have serious doubts about that 2018 team being under the cap. Even after they bought Cronk they still said they had money to keep Pearce. So their side would have consisted of :

1. Tedesco
6. Keary
7. Cronk
9. Friend
14. Pearce

Taking the piss right there.

One thing they do much better than us though is identify gun juniors and get them in their system early. If you have a look at their team they still have heaps more players than us who made their debut at their club.

 

[CaptainJackson]

Waddle, Flanno, Allen.

Allen the jury is out, the other two aren't on massive contracts, at the very least we're not overpaying

 

[Malla]

Dean Pay was only ever going to be a fill in, unless he surprised everyone and got amazing results, he was never going to keep the job, surely he knew that

He wanted to prove that he could coach at first grade level tho. He was so desperate to win. He carried on like a flog when he signed DWZ, then when he put him on the wing and Meaney at the back, we beat Dragons (only cause Dragons are hopeless) and I clearly remember him saying to the media that HE made the changes needed and HE should be commended for the win.

Fuck him.

 

[diddly]

Buying players who are regular long term nsw cup players will not win comps - the potential is in Flegg SGBall - due diligence is what is needed to identify recruit n develop

 

[wendog33]

Allen the jury is out, the other two aren't on massive contracts, at the very least we're not overpaying

A drain on our salary cap and bad signings tho.

 

[BlackDawg]

The key is juniors in conjunction with astute purchases to fill roster gaps. We haven't done this well for the last decade because our directors spend all their time infighting versus instituting positive change. With Laundy in place I think we are finally looking to be in a position to start proper administration but I am nervous because it all comes back to a capability to identify talent & knowing which marquee to spend money on.

 

[Flanagun]

Rather get rid of them then keep them. That whole list is rubbish.

Think you're missing the point....continually shopping players round mid contract would give any player contemplating signing with us pause for thought. Every club does it.....but we have to be wary of doing it too much

 

[Flanagun]

To be fair Flanagan is going to be out the door soon too

Just makes the decision to sign him in the first place even worse.....this is exactly the crap OP is talking about, IMO. We sign a young player who is already down on confidence, our coach places ridiculous amounts of pressure on him by comparing him to the best halfback in the game before he has even played a game for us, we drop him for a player who is really no better and now talk is we are trying to get rid of the poor kid. Any young player would have to think twice about signing with us given the way we've treated Flanagan.... signing him was bad business, getting rid of him would be worse.

 

[CaptainJackson]

Just makes the decision to sign him in the first place even worse.....this is exactly the crap OP is talking about, IMO. We sign a young player who is already down on confidence, our coach places ridiculous amounts of pressure on him by comparing him to the best halfback in the game before he has even played a game for us, we drop him for a player who is really no better and now talk is we are trying to get rid of the poor kid. Any young player would have to think twice about signing with us given the way we've treated Flanagan.... signing him was bad business, getting rid of him would be worse.

1. The club isn't going to get every signing right
2. We had positions that needed urgent filling
3. We had spots in our 30 man squad that, according to NRL regulations, needed filling
4. The type of players we would've desired for those positions are on contract and not available

These type of signings have to be made sometimes, sometimes they'll work out and sometimes they won't. I can accept that as long as we don't overpay for them.

I'd much rather point at re-signing Elliot for what he wanted as a disastrous STUPID decision.

 

[Riggs80]

Pay wanted Reynolds back, the board wouldn't allow it. I'm bias, but for close to minimum wage (quoted by Pay) for a club legend (imo, probably unpopular opinion but w.e.) who would or brought experience into the spine I would of been down (similar to Tigers and Benji), but it depends on the details of course.

The board were correct in not signing him , he was injured basically all last year and already injured this year . He was not going to bring anything to the club playing a few games a season , he is busted .

 

[Flanagun]

1. The club isn't going to get every signing right
2. We had positions that needed urgent filling
3. We had spots in our 30 man squad that, according to NRL regulations, needed filling
4. The type of players we would've desired for those positions are on contract and not available

These type of signings have to be made sometimes, sometimes they'll work out and sometimes they won't. I can accept that as long as we don't overpay for them.

I'd much rather point at re-signing Elliot for what he wanted as a disastrous STUPID decision.

I'm gonna ignore your obligatory little Elliott jibe and just stay on topic.....

You do not go and sign a kid who has just been released one year into a deal if you aren't willing to invest time into him....and you certainly don't put additional pressure on a young player who is down on confidence by comparing him to Nathan Cleary. We could have signed Benji Marshall ffs.... a player who would have provided our spine with the experience it is sorely lacking at present and also would have been great for the development of his cousin's game. Benji would have been the perfect example of a short term signing offering long term gain.

But we didn't go that way, so on to Flanagan. Our staff should have well and truly known what they were getting with him and that he had some limitations they would need to work with.,.... signing him, asking him to run the team when he is clearly not ready for that pressure and then presenting him to the media as Nathan Cleary 2.0 was a huge mistake. Shopping him around six months into his contract will only compound that mistake. If we get rid of Flanagan now, any young player approached by us will think 'here's a club on the bottom of the ladder that offers me no long term security or stability.....hard pass'. If we continue to operate like this, Burton will probably look to exercise his get out clause and get out of dodge after 2 years....nobody is going to want to play for a struggling team that releases players 6-12 months into a contract after touting them as the next big thing. Burton is probably already having doubts about his decision to sign with us, no matter what he says publicly.

The way the whole club has handled the Flanagan situation is just amateur hour stuff. Our club is a hard enough sell for quality players without turning the joint into a transit lounge. And people wonder why players like Brandon Smith want nothing to do with us....lol

 

[JackDog]

Just makes the decision to sign him in the first place even worse.....this is exactly the crap OP is talking about, IMO. We sign a young player who is already down on confidence, our coach places ridiculous amounts of pressure on him by comparing him to the best halfback in the game before he has even played a game for us, we drop him for a player who is really no better and now talk is we are trying to get rid of the poor kid. Any young player would have to think twice about signing with us given the way we've treated Flanagan.... signing him was bad business, getting rid of him would be worse.

Exactly what the Rorters did to him, except subst. Cronk for Cleary and they deliberately signed him long term to get him with the intention of tossing him early when Walker was ready.

We aren't Robinson Crusoe, we just don't have a Walker in our system to slot in.

Again, in paying part contracts to ship people off, everybody does it. We just do it worse because for some reason we insist on back-ending contracts to a ridiculous extent thus costing more to toss the trash.

If the SJ for $400k/yr x 2yrs rumour is true: similar coin as Flanno...SJ the better deal by miles it would seem at present. Does appear to be a band-aid though, and if we were going for the older head to teach the youngsters route, why not Benji? why not Reynolds?

 

[wendog33]

I'm gonna ignore your obligatory little Elliott jibe and just stay on topic.....

You do not go and sign a kid who has just been released one year into a deal if you aren't willing to invest time into him....and you certainly don't put additional pressure on a young player who is down on confidence by comparing him to Nathan Cleary. We could have signed Benji Marshall ffs.... a player who would have provided our spine with the experience it is sorely lacking at present and also would have been great for the development of his cousin's game. Benji would have been the perfect example of a short term signing offering long term gain.

But we didn't go that way, so on to Flanagan. Our staff should have well and truly known what they were getting with him and that he had some limitations they would need to work with.,.... signing him, asking him to run the team when he is clearly not ready for that pressure and then presenting him to the media as Nathan Cleary 2.0 was a huge mistake. Shopping him around six months into his contract will only compound that mistake. If we get rid of Flanagan now, any young player approached by us will think 'here's a club on the bottom of the ladder that offers me no long term security or stability.....hard pass'. If we continue to operate like this, Burton will probably look to exercise his get out clause and get out of dodge after 2 years....nobody is going to want to play for a struggling team that releases players 6-12 months into a contract after touting them as the next big thing. Burton is probably already having doubts about his decision to sign with us, no matter what he says publicly.

The way the whole club has handled the Flanagan situation is just amateur hour stuff. Our club is a hard enough sell for quality players without turning the joint into a transit lounge. And people wonder why players like Brandon Smith want nothing to do with us....lol

Some good points.

 

[CaptainJackson]

I'm gonna ignore your obligatory little Elliott jibe and just stay on topic.....

You do not go and sign a kid who has just been released one year into a deal if you aren't willing to invest time into him....and you certainly don't put additional pressure on a young player who is down on confidence by comparing him to Nathan Cleary. We could have signed Benji Marshall ffs.... a player who would have provided our spine with the experience it is sorely lacking at present and also would have been great for the development of his cousin's game. Benji would have been the perfect example of a short term signing offering long term gain.

But we didn't go that way, so on to Flanagan. Our staff should have well and truly known what they were getting with him and that he had some limitations they would need to work with.,.... signing him, asking him to run the team when he is clearly not ready for that pressure and then presenting him to the media as Nathan Cleary 2.0 was a huge mistake. Shopping him around six months into his contract will only compound that mistake. If we get rid of Flanagan now, any young player approached by us will think 'here's a club on the bottom of the ladder that offers me no long term security or stability.....hard pass'. If we continue to operate like this, Burton will probably look to exercise his get out clause and get out of dodge after 2 years....nobody is going to want to play for a struggling team that releases players 6-12 months into a contract after touting them as the next big thing. Burton is probably already having doubts about his decision to sign with us, no matter what he says publicly.

The way the whole club has handled the Flanagan situation is just amateur hour stuff. Our club is a hard enough sell for quality players without turning the joint into a transit lounge. And people wonder why players like Brandon Smith want nothing to do with us....lol

It's a cut throat business. I don't know why you would want a young player who has fears of being cut, simply put that would suggest that they're not cut out for fighting for their position, hence not necessarily a player you would want.

Which would lead to a player having self-belief, an ego on him, someone who is willing to fight for his chance. So no, I don't think that's going to deter the type of player we want.

For example, at any time this year, Matt Burton could've attempted to get out of his contract with us, he's got all the reasons to try and get out of his contract and stay with a successful team/club BUT the kid wants to FIGHT AND PROVE HIMSELF IN THE HALVES. He's not worried about being cut, or shopped around, he's worried about proving himself in the halves with a struggling club.

The Flanagan stuff is part and parcel of running a professional sporting organisation, even more so when the talent pool is so little and you're restrained by a salary cap