The Watmough thing? Only surprising thing about the Watmough thing is that it’s been aired. Most if not all of these things remain firmly in-house. Or in-pub, anyway.
But it happens, baby. Oh yes. It happens.
A footy team is like a really big family. They spend so much time with each other, there’s going to be disagreements.
In a group of thirty blokes, and that many again in the staff, not everyone’s going to be best mates.
I have an occasional beer with a current first grader, Origin player, a senior man, and he is what you’d call a good font of fair dinkum. He says blow-ups are normal. He’s seen plenty like what’s happened at Manly.
Many of Manly’s recruitment and retention issues were blamed on DCE. (AAP Image/Mick Tsikas)
“I’ve seen punch-ups, blokes really ripping in, stuff that would’ve gone big in the news if it hadn’t been kept in-house,” he says. “At a footy club, what goes on in-house has to stay in-house.
“And it needs to be that way, you need trust among teammates. It’s a very big thing. It’s something that’s spoken about a lot at clubs. Senior blokes will get serious in meetings – this stays in-house.”
Choccy Watmough’s been out of the house for some years now and apparently stewing enough that he could no longer stand the burden of knowing that his side of the story isn’t out in the public sphere.
And our Choccy went back in the tent, and set his truth free on a podcast thingy. And we’ll yap about it for a few days in the way of these things.
And what we’ll yap about is this:
Seems Daly Cherry-Evans was resented by senior blokes at Manly because he wouldn’t obey a pecking order that decreed he should accept less money and thus keep the band together, as Glenn and Brett Stewart, and Anthony Watmough, according to Anthony Watmough, had done.
Further according to Watmough – and any northern beaches knucklehead who knows a bloke who knows a bloke who walks his dog with Dessie around Collaroy – our DCE wouldn’t take smaller money to keep a winning club together by playing for unders in the window of opportunity the salary cap afforded them.
And DCE wasn’t having that, as is his right.
Whether he should’ve, as Watmough says, boycotted training, whether Geoff Toovey should’ve dropped him as Watmough says he urged, whether senior figures on the board should’ve held any sway in selection for the weekend XVII on the park, as Watmough says they did … is a story for another day.
Daly Cherry Evans (Photo by Mark Metcalfe/Getty Images)
This one purports that Choc and Snake and Gifty Glenn didn’t like the young punk, and still don’t like him, it appears, and the only surprising is that Watmough’s told the world via a podcast instead of anyone who’d listen at the Brookvale Hotel.
Pass the popcorn and/or beer nuts.
Now, again, this stuff happens. Players talk. They know or think they know, or think they know someone who knows, what other players are on. And not just at their club, at all the clubs.
And there’s a seniority thing that older players believe in and younger men, it appears, increasingly do not.
“The culture in footy has changed,” reckons my man. “Young kids are coming through a lot more confident now. There used to be a nod to seniority. If you came in to grade and one of the older boys told you to do something you’d do it. Jump? How high? Unpack all the luggage off the team bus? Yes sir Mr Lockyer sir!
“Now it’s more people talking about young blokes being equal, about everyone being equal. I don’t necessarily agree. I think you have to have earn stripes.
“Young blokes can come through cocky, confident. The U/20s has driven that a bit. They’re getting on TV even though it’s more a glorified Jersey Flegg comp. Reserve grade used to be a big step up, going from boys to men.
“Now a lot of young kids hit U/20s and think they’re one step off first grade. It’s not the case!”
There are clubs – like Manly – that try to keep it going, the seniority thing. At some clubs it’s still about earning stripes.
But there’s a lot of let’s call them ‘confident’ kids today who seem to think that’s not how it should be.
“They just want it all from the get-go without doing any time,” says my man. “They’re being lauded by their peers, girls, managers. Some are coming though with pretty big tickets on themselves.”
It happens.
You surprised?
Forty Twenty
Guest
It seems that plenty of things could have been handled better Chris Love but if the club had their time again they still wouldn't have signed Glen Stewart to a new contract regardless of DCE and whatever he did. If DCE wasn't even at the club, given their time again they wouldn't have signed Snake and Matai to new contracts either despite their stellar contributions for a decade. It is normal for any club including Manly to 'let players go' who they feel are done and dusted.
Chris Love
Roar Guru
Thanks for clearing that up. Some seem to be confusing the two.
Chris Love
Roar Guru
Steveng, I think you and others are mixing two things that were several years apart. That is completely understandable the way the conversation went on the podcast and the way Watmough articulated it. But the way I understand it is and Manly fans may correct me if I’m wrong but: Watmough’s argument that DCE is a f#$&wit stems from the early 2012/late 2011 incident just after they’d won the 2011 title and were preparing for the 2012 season. DCE’s won an NRL ring and Rookie of the year honours and wants more money. But he’s already signed a contract for bottom dollar. Now he’s trying to hold the whole team to ransom and putting 2012 performance of the whole team in jeopardy by not turning up to training until his demands are met. Watmough being a senior leader at the club tries to get him to pull his head in and be responsible for the contract that he had signed. It seems none of the comments so far have pointed out that DCE needed to show some responsibility for his own actions. At this point I think Watmough is 100% in the right and Toovey should have shown some backbone but with a disfunctional board that was picking favourites Toovey didn’t make waves (only to be shafted by the same side board later on) He uses this as an example of where DCE seems to be the common factor in a number of issues, adding namely QLD not wanting a bar of him and the Jackson hasting incident. Then turn to the end of the 2013 season is where he’s dirty that the club didn’t re-sign his mate Glenn Stewart. Correct me if I’m wrong but Stewart was off contract at the time and wasn’t off loaded mid contract? If that’s the case then Manly in its perogative have every right not to resign any player and Watmough doesn’t have a strong case to be dirty at them. Sure they stayed for unders but that’s got no obligation on Manly to renew. They had every chance to sign a longer contract and back-end it if necessary. That didn’t happen and Watmough and Stewart need to hold their own responsibility for that. I think he told I as he saw it and explained his side of the whole Dessie - Tooves handlig by the board. He and the other players got burnt by Hasler when he told them furphies about the conditions of why he was leaving Manly. The players have a mini revolt and it turns out they did so on a false premise. Then when Toovey didn’t put DCE in his place at the start of 2012 and was subsequently shafted by the same people, he had no sympathy for Tooves. That’s just how I saw the points Watmough was making. Right or wrong but many of the comments here seem to be mixing the two and coming up with false conclusions. The whole pecking order thing between DCE’s contract upgrade at the start of 2012 and them releasing (not-resigning) Stewart at the end of 2013 were two years apart.
Chris Love
Roar Guru
Parramatta needed that so it was deemed a career ending injury whilst playing at Parramatta. The way I understand it is, the insurance company does the insurance company thing and claims pre-existing injury so they don’t have to pay up. If that stands then Watguts’ salary that season remains under Parramatta’s cap when he wasn’t going to play ever again. Parramatta were needing to offload that amount to get under the cap after the scandal. Watguts sues, wins, and parramatta are happy.
Gray-Hand
Guest
The fact that the NRL has refused to register contracts on the basis that they do not represent the market value of the player is proof that parity of talent is a driving force behind the current salary cap regime. Also, NRL officials always talk about talent distribution being the reason for the salary cap - far more often than they talk about cost control. Why would there be rules against clubs arranging 3rd party sponsorships for players if parity wasn’t a driving force?
Edward Kelly
Roar Guru
I don't pay any attention to potty mouths.
jacko
Guest
Lol...my mates said the same
Gray-Hand
Guest
That would only be true if all clubs engaged in the activity, which isn’t evident. But it was clearly a chronic problem at Manly, and later Canterbury.
Gray-Hand
Guest
Of course he was. But his contract got upgraded by 1000% according to Watmough, so I guess he and his manager played it pretty well. Still probably an empty threat in any event.
Forty Twenty
Guest
The podcast showed Watmough to have a diabolical memory as well as boasting about telling fibs. He has no credibility. It's not all dodgy but some of it is.
steveng
Roar Rookie
Yes, fully agree BA! DCE did a dog act (as far as Watmough is concerned) and the 'Sea Eagles' board, officials forgot about the players that made a sacrifice (in salaries and big money) to get the club to where it got, after the rabble that they were in! That is what Watmough is saying and that is what Watmough is so dirty about.
Danny Bagadonuts
Guest
Everyone seems to be equating them to both meaning the same thing but "taking unders" and "backended contracts" are two different things. IE, if a player is worth 500K per year and over a four year deal his contract is worked so he receives 300K / 300K / 500K and 900K, that is a "backended contract", whereas, if a player is worth 500K per year and over a four year deal gets paid 400K / 400K / 400K and 400K, then he is "taking unders" (so that the team can be kept together)..
RoryStorm
Guest
Who's to say Watmough's not telling the truth. I have a mate who knows Cleal, Bellamy, Brad aRobinson, Bennett and they all told my mate..............Bugger all because they didn't know anything.
John
Guest
@ Gray-Hand: Given that the funding that clubs receives from the NRL is directly related to the cap I would think cost control would be the biggest one.
Don
Roar Rookie
It’s just a ridiculous premise isn’t it. Somehow the players agreeing with the club and each other that they will accept a certain salary each year that, over the term of their contract is in line with their market value (otherwise the NRL would not approve it anyway) in order to continue to play together unbalanced the competition and denied other clubs access to those players? Every player was paid at their market value. The payment structure over the term should be between the players and their clubs. Also, a club cannot contract a player hugely below market value in any year regardless of whether it catches up later. When Parramatta tried to sign Israel Folau the NRL knocked back the deal because the first 2 years salary didn’t reflect his market value even though subsequent years were above market value to pick up the difference. It’s not like they were paying Glenn Stewart $200k a year then it went to $1m in the 3rd year. Not allowed to...
Forty Twenty
Guest
I doubt very much that Watmoughs version is anywhere near the truth. I know someone who asked Cleal at the time if he was concerned at losing Hodgkinson and he said he wasn't because his replacement was better. That contradicts Watmough who said he was on a low contract because nobody thought he was any good. Whatever the truth is DCE's form in his first year and beyond created a welcome but difficult problem with the salary cap. You have valid points here Greg but there is a broader issue. Manly is privately owned and these owners can splash and lose money in the way they want and upgrade or not re sign players in any fashion they desire. DCE was the best or close to the best half in his first three years in the comp. It seems keeping him happy was more important than keeping some older players happy despite what the contract says. Teams do one or the other all the time. James Maloney was punted to make way for Jackson Hastings at the Roosters because they made an educated guess that it was best for the clubs future. They also in effect punted Pearce for a similar reason. Manly made the right call in favoring DCE over Stewart and Watmough but even if it was proven wrong they are the ones taking the big risk and it's their money anyway.
mushi
Roar Guru
Also it doesn't distort as the same options are available to other clubs. Extrapolating the adjectives used by such as considered communicator and financial structuring mastermind like Watmough (who apparently couldn't remember the correct winger) is perhaps not the best grounding for an argument.
mushi
Roar Guru
There is an amount in TPA's that the club can have that don't meet the TPA's criteria for a player
mushi
Roar Guru
And that Gray-hand is why a slaary cap can't be a parity driver. Money is typically a gate way decision and then after a certian point many other attributes drive an employee's decision making. research on this began in the 1970s
mushi
Roar Guru
It is the dirving reason, if they wanted parity they'd have made a littany of other changes - they didn't because it's a false driver.