Official Blayke Brailey

[HaroldBishop]

That’s massive overs if true

Compared to who? It's a sellers market at the moment

Mahoney

 

[Tiger Shark]

Article from Riccio says the deal is upwards of 2.1m

Last time I checked that ain’t 625k a year. Who’s the one who can’t count lol.

 

[bort]

Article from Riccio says the deal is upwards of 2.1m

Last time I checked that ain’t 625k a year. Who’s the one who can’t count lol.

depends how much upwards

but I think around 525 is a much better number

 

[Sparkles]

I agree it's a very good contract for Blayke, but wouldn't say it was massive overs compared to Mahoney. Totally different styles of player, but also in very different types of teams. Both very good.
I would be happy to swap them for a season and see how they do to properly compare...

 

[Tiger Shark]

so according to Ricio's telgraph article it's around $625k per season

ouch

great deal for blayke though. I doubt even the bulldogs would have paid him much more than that on the open market

oh wait the bulldogs signed a better hooker for pretty much the same contract

Found the one who can’t count

 

[HaroldBishop]

Article from Riccio says the deal is upwards of 2.1m

Last time I checked that ain’t 625k a year. Who’s the one who can’t count lol.

How do you know that? That just says 2.1m is the minimum.

 

[HaroldBishop]

Found the one who can’t count

Do you know what upwards means?

 

[Shark_Hatch]

If this new deal has been done since Fitzzy took over as coach obviously he rates him highly & sees him as a big part of our long term hooker/rotation role. The deal may be pretty high but I've got no dramas with having Brailey with us next 4 years, he's good high potential. Finucane & McInness will only help him further with our current 2022 forward pack.

 

[Sparkles]

If this new deal has been done since Fitzzy took over as coach obviously he rates him highly & sees him as a big part of our long term hooker/rotation role. The deal may be pretty high but I've got no dramas with having Brailey with us next 4 years, he's good high potential. Finucane & McInness will only help him further with our current 2022 forward pack.

The money only slightly raises the brow, but I'll always sigh a little at a four year deal unless it's for a proven gun more in the middle than start or end of their career. But in todays NRL these kinds of contracts seem all the rage, so I guess we've done what we thought we needed to do to be competitve

 

[bort]

I imagine it is easier to squeeze an extra year of security into the deal than more money too

 

[Proud Shark]

525k I think is a good deal for us, 625 I think is good for him. Either way I'm not too upset about 100k. 3 years preferable but I think this will work out well for us. Up to him to prove his worth now.

 

[Sparkles]

525k I think is a good deal for us, 625 I think is good for him. Either way I'm not too upset about 100k. 3 years preferable but I think this will work out well for us. Up to him to prove his worth now.

And I guess what's a contract length mean anyway. If one party isn't happy at some point they tend to work out a move anyhow

 

[HaroldBishop]

And I guess what's a contract length mean anyway. If one party isn't happy at some point they tend to work out a move anyhow

Like we did with Dugan and Moylan?

 

[bort]

Like we did with Dugan and Moylan?

Which party wasn't happy with Moylan? Him who re-signed or us who re-signed him? I think you're confusing yourself for a relevant party in this situation.

And by the time Sharks weren't happy with Dugan he had a few months left, not sure how much leverage they would have had to make something happen there.

 

[HaroldBishop]

Which party wasn't happy with Moylan? Him who re-signed or us who re-signed him? I think you're confusing yourself for a relevant party in this situation.

No confusion here, we shopped him around a couple of times over the course of his contract.

 

[Tiger Shark]

Like we did with Dugan and Moylan?

Moylan got a contract extension so how did that not work out ?

Dugan well that's super coach Flanno not having a plan and panic buying when we lost Bird.

If you're comparing a 23 year old hooker who's making less to Dugan's contract well I think that's pretty silly.

 

[bort]

No confusion here, we shopped him around a couple of times over the course of his contract.

We obviously didn't want it bad enough that we ended up extending him ourselves.
But yeah, fair, there was def a stage we were interested in moving him. Based on extension that interest was obviously heavily motivated by wanting to free up cash rather than him being the main issue himself.
Funnily enough the fact we didn't value him as high and the fact nobody wanted him were both largely based on injury, which is only gunna make him very hard to shop.

 

[HaroldBishop]

Moylan got a contract extension so how did that not work out ?

Dugan well that's super coach Flanno not having a plan and panic buying when we lost Bird.

If you're comparing a 23 year old hooker who's making less to Dugan's contract well I think that's pretty silly.

I'm talking last year when we shopped him around, his own manager said there was no interest.

Put it in context, I was replying to @Sparkles saying clubs can move players on under contract if they want to. Doesn't always happen as was evident with Moylan last year.

 

[HaroldBishop]

We obviously didn't want it bad enough that we ended up extending him ourselves.
But yeah, fair, there was def a stage we were interested in moving him. Based on extension that interest was obviously heavily motivated by wanting to free up cash rather than him being the main issue himself.
Funnily enough the fact we didn't value him as high and the fact nobody wanted him were both largely based on injury, which is only gunna make him very hard to shop.

We wanted to free up cash because he wasn't living up to his contract. That's precisely my point.

 

[bort]

We wanted to free up cash because he wasn't living up to his contract. That's precisely my point.

Because he was injured which makes him hard to sell
So your example was accurate but not really the circumstances I think Sparkles had in mind.

I think he is talking more like us getting Aaron Woods for a good price (debatable, I am sure) because he was underperforming Bulldogs contract, I think it would have been a different story if the issue had been he was injured 50% of the time. I'd hope we would have been less interested.

There was also interest from potentially both parties for Fifita to take other opportunities too but similarly it becomes a lot harder when the issue is ****s ****ed.

No argument on Dugan being not a great example?

(will have to self filter that profanity haha)