(Archived) THE RUMOUR MILL - Player Movement

[bort]

To start ?
As he has wanted.
Doubt he starts at the Roosters

He can start at 13 for half the year when Radley suspended and the other half at 9 when their hookers are injured.

 

[egg]

starting hooker role has been promised to him

Aaaah Haaa
That makes more sense
Cheers

 

[Sir Chadley]

I still don’t understand how clubs can promise players they’ll play in a certain position.

Who’s in charge?

You should play where the coach thinks it’s best for the team.

 

[Thresher]

I still don’t understand how clubs can promise players they’ll play in a certain position.

Who’s in charge?

You should play where the coach thinks it’s best for the team.

I prefer Flanno's softly softly approach of a preseason fullback-off.

In this case it could be a hooker-off. Although the competition to butt heads with props in the middle of a farty scrum might attract a few less applicants.

 

[D.D]

No way in the world is Watson getting the starting 9 gig at the roosters. Verrills has that. He will be a great Utility for them off the bench and be straight into the starting side at 13, 9 and 6 should inevitable injuries occur. Good signing for them, still no way we compete as we wuld want him on similar coin so its a no brainer for him to return to the chooks.

 

[Tiger Shark]

would he though? he has signed to play 9 at the roosters

we are having a discussion about watson and where he would fit in here

13 - we signed mcinnes, which would mean mcinnis to 9 and brailey to the bench, which then either makes tracey our centre or keeps him out of the team

9 - brailey is better

6/7 - please no, would rather moylan

centre - i think he would be ok there but never played, neither had burton but he probably doesnt want that gig

i think our link was familiarity for fitz with no real plan for him

our most important recruitment decisions now need to be another prop, half back and centre

Well he wouldn't have gotten a starting position and probably a big reason why he's gone to the Roosters but look at how we've been decimated with injury. We haven't had a full strength team ever. Watson would have been very useful.

Sure where does he play when we're full strength, 14 seemed the obvious spot but again how often will we be full strength.

Can't blame him if he's getting the hooking spot, though I thought Verrils was doing pretty good.

 

[snowman]

verrils isnt the footballer watson is, and they paid to get him back

 

[bort]

I still don’t understand how clubs can promise players they’ll play in a certain position.

Who’s in charge?

You should play where the coach thinks it’s best for the team.

I wouldn't promise players **** all. You either earn it or you don't. If you are good enough to deserve to be promised the spot you shouldn't need to be promised it.

Last season weren't some saying Trindall should be promised starting 7 for us for this year to get him to re-sign? Then he didn't get any other offers and re-signed anyway

 

[Sparkles]

I'd be looking carefully at the junior hooker depth if I were Watson. I think he's a fair player, but I don't believe a $300k utility is the Roosters long term plan

 

[Thresher]

I wouldn't promise players **** all. You either earn it or you don't. If you are good enough to deserve to be promised the spot you shouldn't need to be promised it.

Last season weren't some saying Trindall should be promised starting 7 for us for this year to get him to re-sign? Then he didn't get any other offers and re-signed anyway

I can understand a top flight winger looking for a guarantee to get a fair crack at fullback. It can take a while to settle into that role, especially organising defence etc.

 

[bort]

I can understand a top flight winger looking for a guarantee to get a fair crack at fullback. It can take a while to settle into that role, especially organising defence etc.

If he is signing somewhere without a better fullback then as I said, shouldn't need the promise. I agree the player would want to feel comfortable the coach recognises it will be a transition before they reach their full potential in the position.
If he is signing somewhere with a better fullback then he should know he will have to do well to earn it.

I guess if you thought it would be close and you were the one weighing up if you should go there or not some reassurance you'd be given decent reps in preseason and some time in a trial to make your case makes sense. Promising to give someone a fair chance is a bit different to promising a start in a position, especially when they are not already a starting player in that position.

 

[BurgoShark]

If he is signing somewhere without a better fullback then as I said, shouldn't need the promise. I agree the player would want to feel comfortable the coach recognises it will be a transition before they reach their full potential in the position.
If he is signing somewhere with a better fullback then he should know he will have to do well to earn it.

I guess if you thought it would be close and you were the one weighing up if you should go there or not some reassurance you'd be given decent reps in preseason and some time in a trial to make your case makes sense. Promising to give someone a fair chance is a bit different to promising a start in a position, especially when they are not already a starting player in that position.

Yeah. First crack and a bit of rope. Not a guarantee.

 

[Thresher]

If he is signing somewhere without a better fullback then as I said, shouldn't need the promise. I agree the player would want to feel comfortable the coach recognises it will be a transition before they reach their full potential in the position.
If he is signing somewhere with a better fullback then he should know he will have to do well to earn it.

I guess if you thought it would be close and you were the one weighing up if you should go there or not some reassurance you'd be given decent reps in preseason and some time in a trial to make your case makes sense. Promising to give someone a fair chance is a bit different to promising a start in a position, especially when they are not already a starting player in that position.

Also as an incentive to move from a decent team to a crap team. Apart from money, a decent crack at your preferred position could be used as a carrot.

 

[Proud Shark]

I'm baffled by the whole Manu contract talk. First, I can't believe he is currently on 750k, at the chooks, to play centre. Just doesn't sound like a roosters kind of contract.

Second, is he really worth a million? To play in a position/positions he has filled in for a handful of times. I rate him, and I think he could make the transition to 6 or 1, but holy hell I wouldn't be gambling a mil on it.

 

[Sparkles]

Not sure what the scandal is in promising players positions? I mean, you're signing them to play somewhere, and surely it doesn't have to be explained that you keep your spot on form.
I'm also pretty sure most players would have a position in mind. It'd be like applying for a job and they say to you "we'll give you a crack as Management Manager, but understand there's every chance you'll be Assistant Manager next week and maybe not a Manager at all if we find someone we like better"

 

[BurgoShark]

Not sure what the scandal is in promising players positions? I mean, you're signing them to play somewhere, and surely it doesn't have to be explained that you keep your spot on form.
I'm also pretty sure most players would have a position in mind. It'd be like applying for a job and they say to you "we'll give you a crack as Management Manager, but understand there's every chance you'll be Assistant Manager next week and maybe not a Manager at all if we find someone we like better"

That sounds exactly like the NRL.

 

[bort]

Not sure what the scandal is in promising players positions? I mean, you're signing them to play somewhere, and surely it doesn't have to be explained that you keep your spot on form.
I'm also pretty sure most players would have a position in mind. It'd be like applying for a job and they say to you "we'll give you a crack as Management Manager, but understand there's every chance you'll be Assistant Manager next week and maybe not a Manager at all if we find someone we like better"

"We promise you are our starting hooker unless, and this goes without saying, we want to pick someone else"

Being in a sports team squad vying for positions and getting a specific job title are pretty different...

 

[Sir Chadley]

Not sure what the scandal is in promising players positions? I mean, you're signing them to play somewhere, and surely it doesn't have to be explained that you keep your spot on form.
I'm also pretty sure most players would have a position in mind. It'd be like applying for a job and they say to you "we'll give you a crack as Management Manager, but understand there's every chance you'll be Assistant Manager next week and maybe not a Manager at all if we find someone we like better"

Mate, you're sensationalising things. I wasn't saying it was a scandal. I was just saying players shouldn't hold coaches to ransom about where they want to play before they'll sign a contract. As Burgo says, tell them they can be considered in that position and have some time to cement it, but don't promise they're going to play there all the time.

 

[BlackWhiteBlue]

I can understand a top flight winger looking for a guarantee to get a fair crack at fullback. It can take a while to settle into that role, especially organising defence etc.

Big reason why wingers want fb roles is $

Mick Gordon even said that when in talks with penrith before he left. His words were I want fullback money.

 

[Flanno]

Big reason why wingers want fb roles is $

Mick Gordon even said that when in talks with penrith before he left. His words were I want fullback money.

Still wasn’t enough for him, had to turn to drug dealer money (*allegedly)