Eels hit out at media as RCG re-signs

you do realise that Papaali's preferred position is as a middle, not an edge?

i don't hate the RCG signing, he is playing better football now than he did when he played Origin. But i think because he was probably a bit lucky to play origin, he is an easy target for key board warriors. That said, it is risky signing him first and setting the benchmark when you have other key personnel to sign. I think they will lose Papali'i. If another club offers him first crack at backrow, he will jump. He was thriving in the backrow, then Arthur pushed him back in the middle in a move which made no sense when you had depth in fringe front rowers.

AAP now picking up articles written by Scott Pyde on another website.

Mark O'Neill got fired from his last job for something to do with butts... different circumstance though

OK, here we go. 1) No, not that well. You can jump topics but that's a different thing. 2 & 3) “Souths received special treatment in their applications”. By comparison, yes they did. Sam was on his 3rd shoulder surgery with only 25% of his shoulder left. Inglis couldn't play without needles. Knowing this, both were re-signed on large, long contracts by Souths. By your definition, the NRL should have stepped in an told them those contracts would not be validated. How would you have reacted? That is what you are asking for. These are chronic recurring injuries not the ones that happen in an instant. You are joining the two in one argument when they are not. Medical retirements exist for those guys and there is no difference between Matai, Snake, GI or Burgess. You believe they (Manly) were entitled to I get that, but it makes no difference when one club is held to one standard and other gets 2 x marquee players passed. Just to appease the NRL, Souths give them both club roles for $300k to be taken off the cap. Sure, $2m worth of cap now reduced to $600k because Souths doctors run them into the ground. What could Souths do with $1.4m in their cap? Hello Arrow. Welcome Mitchell. This right up there with the Roosters sombrero. :laughing: 4) What chronic injuries does Reynolds have? He missed 2 non-consecutive games early this season with his thumb. in 2020, pre season groin but played every single game. Broncos Doctors have done their checks and no surgery required. He has played 118 games from 124 he could have played in the last 5yrs. Tell you what, if he succumbs to his thumb injury, I won't say a word but neither will you because he could come in on crutches with an oxygen mask and you believe that is ok. 5) I thought I did touch on the reserve list but I shortened the reply just to make it a little more cutting! :laughing: Clubs have a top 30 list just for this reason. Both Broncos and Easts have used 34-35 players in recent years but they have to seek permission from the NRL. There is also timelines (for whatever reason) when they can actually play. I have no problem with this. I don't mind the loan system either. I don't know how your system would work. Imagine of Storm lost Cronk through injury and went and got JT because NQ weren't playing finals?

These blokes’ worth must be linked to the housing price bubble increases of late in the current silly season of retention & recruitment. Papali’i has had half a season of decent footy if you discount his time with the underperforming Warriors & could end up a typical ‘second season’ flop, Matterson is one coat hanger tackle away from forced retirement (not wishing anything on him), Niukore hasn’t yet got a lengthy body of performances behind him so you’re speculating on potential, while Mahoney is a fifty tackles per game small young middle forward with possibly chronic shoulder problems, what could go wrong? Everyone seems to suggest 3 years for Reynolds is a big risk but in my boat it’s the guys who’ve had a number of head knocks that are the greatest risk from purely a salary cap perspective. Don’t get me wrong, a fit Mahoney would probably make the broncos a 6th-8th table finisher at the least but $600-700k is a lot of dough. The Cowboys would be far better off paying Junior Paulo $800k instead of chasing Kikau, at least he’s got ball skills which they need in their pack.

Key strategy for any half decent player coming off contract in 2022, just announce you’d be interested in joining the (Redcliffe) Dolphins in 2023 to get the negotiations with your current club kicked along more urgently.

1. "We’re arguing 2 different points." I'm capable of arguing two different points simultaneously. 2. "Souths received special treatment in their applications" That is a spurious claim. Souths and Burgess proved with the support of an impartial medical specialist that the injury was a new injury and not a chronic injury that was the cause of Sam's retirement. I think it is a red herring in any case. If the injury was sustained playing the game the governing body of that game is responsible for compensation just like in the real world. Otherwise do you advocate discriminating against players who have chronic injuries and deny them a chance to earn a living? If the club signs a player in good faith expecting to be able to avoid further injury to that player or manage their existing injury it does not negate the responsibility of the NRL for OH&S and their liability for injuries sustained during their employment. 3. "if any club signs a +30yo, injury prone player to a long and expensive contract that is a risk the club takes." I don't agree. See my argument for point 2. Besides, be careful what you wish for. If Adam Reynolds can't complete his contract with the Broncos due to game related injuries I will be arguing that the Broncos should be allowed to medically retire Reynolds and get the appropriate pro rata salary cap relief. I will be expecting you to argue against this Nat. 4. "you keep wishing it on him and it might happen" Like I said before Nat, I don't wish that on Reynolds. I simply pointing out the increased likelihood and the irony of the position you and your Broncos would be in IF that happened. 5. You haven't commented on my suggestion of adopting an NRL Injured Reserve list to allow clubs to sign a replacement for a player that has a season ending injury or who will be missing for the majority of the season. Why won't that work? There are plenty of players in the NRL who are on the verge of breaking into first-grade but are not getting that opportunity. Hence the evolution of the NRL "loan system".

We're arguing 2 different points. I support medical retirements - ok? Just because I believe (and the rest of the NRL community) Souths received special treatment in their applications doesn't mean I am against medical retirements. I am not anti the entire subject because Souths got away with a few. I know you thought the Manly boys were hard done by in that regard. Maybe if they got passed like Souths did, this wouldn't be a discussion but they didn't. Your support really doesn't change that. As Matth says, if any club signs a +30yo, injury prone player to a long and expensive contract that is a risk the club takes. Pushing to keep these players on to the field through surgery and needles is not the responsibility of the NRL when the club doctors are the ones who are doing this. That is 100% the club's duty of care. If it happen to Reynolds, fair enough, but you keep wishing it on him and it might happen. Teach him for not accepting a one year deal, what's he ever done for the club? That way you win. :thumbup:

:laughing:

I see you've taken the required action to do so. All the best with it. :thumbup:

Maybe the answer is for the NRL to step in when a contract is registered and say (for example), “you’ve hired a 31 year old with chronic injuries for 3 years. That’s on you”. But they provide compensation to player and club in the Jarral Yow Yeh situation where a freak injury ends an otherwise perfectly healthy player’s career.

Raiders are probably kicking in 200% of his contract

If you intend to spend your life as a simpleton, best learn how to spell it first

Look up my past comments under another profile and you will see that I argued that Manly were hard done by when Stewart and Matai were denied medical retirements before Sam Burgess and Greg Inglis were medically retired by the NRL. The fact of the matter is that is needed to happen and some club was always going to be the first beneficiary. Since you are so against the concept of medical retirements and clubs being given salary cap relief proportional to the pro rata period remaining on a player's contract, I will hold you to that Nat if a chronically injured 31 year old Adam Reynolds doesn't see out the end of this three-year $2.2 million contract.

With us yes but hopefully not causing too many disruptions. Games in Victoria would seem to be the biggest risk with anyone not vaccinated. Will be fun and games checking every fan on those turnstiles as well.

It must be his elocution certificate from the Julia Gillard School of Deportment

bummer that. well considering how good the Raiders went in 2021 - why would Parra pick him up?

Been a consultant at the Raiders for a few years..didn’t stop him.

What point am I missing? Medical retirements exist (and Cordner was paid out). Whether you believe Snake and Matai were deserving or not is irrelevant to the argument. The NRL knocked them back. I think you want to acknowledge them to justify the special treatment Souths received. Besides, If any other team received that same treatment you would be on them like a rash.