Broncos Record breaking coach is safe

They need to get to the bottom of this performance clause issue. Either way, heads needs to roll for not placing a performance clause or for being unaware of a performance clause or possibly lying about have a performance clause.
 
Last edited:
Sproj said:
Why? You enjoy seeing the same thing over and over again?

Seibs mantra: "If it is broke, don't fix it."
Click to expand...

I am starting with what we know for a fact. Just one, among a few others.

For a fact, we know our defence isn't working under the blow torch of the new rule, against those teams who have adapted to it. Those who have adapted use attacking shapes which target slow moving defensive lines, like ours, usually on the back foot, and particularly those lines which don't re-form quickly enough in the face of fast moving attacking plays. And also those with shaky edge defences, like our right side, where the winger constantly leaves his wing, leaving gaping holes to exploit. Last game was yet another example of how and where we leak points out wide.

Seibold has admitted publicly we haven't adapted to the new rule. So it's on him to fix it. It's broken. It needs an urgent fix. So why hasn't it been fixed?

A few things come to mind to explain this. First, he couldn't be bothered. Somehow I doubt that. He wouldn't admit publicly our defence is shit under the new rule and then not do anything about it.

That then leaves the real possibility he is working on it and our players are just not following his instructions. On top of that, I doubt it is an easy thing to fix what has been the norm since 2015 if not longer - a "wait for them" approach, a Bennett style, a Bennett legacy. It worked under the old rule when there was a lot more time for the defensive line to form and re-form, and, where our individual tackling was top notch and, the defensive line was coordinated by key players, like our on field leaders.

This year, we have a lot of inexperienced players and no leaders which for mine, goes a long way to explaining why our defensive structure is slow to adapt. Boyd is particularly to blame here IMO. He does little as a leader, which is why he was re-signed, and why he should now resign. Out. Now. By his inaction as a leader on the park, I reckon he is undermining Seibold, and the confidence of younger players, by not putting in. We really need a wise, older head at the back, be it FB or centre. Boyd has simply given up in this vital role, a role again for which he was re-signed, and why I think Seibold has persisted with him, hoping he would come good.

Against the Warriors, I saw good signs of improvement in our individual tackling efforts. That's a start to bring about change. Now, Seibold has to show, as do the players, that the line itself has is adapting to the new rule, by coming forward, being on the front foot to smother attacking plays.

Personally, I think too many players are just not chipping in and doing what they surely know they have to do, individually and collectively. Again, I can't see that this is purely Seibold's fault that they are not. In any case, to change a defensive pattern that has been ingrained in Broncos sides for over 5 years is not an easy task, made a hell of a lot harder if players are not taking the bit between their teeth. It's a big ask, especially if some or more than some players don't want to. Having poor leadership on the field is another key issue here. Either way, Seibold's job here is not easy, and I think blaming him for everything is going too far.

It's on Seibold to do as he said he would - change things, give us a new future. Part of that job is to ensure the players respond. If they won't or can't, then Seibold is not for us, along with a good number of players.

The game against the Dogs will tell a lot .. in defence, which is broke, and needs to be fixed ASAP.
 
broncos4life said:
I am assuming it is confirmation of the performance clauses, the ones that Locky denied.

I hate to say this because Locky is my favourite player of all time but is seriously looking like a buffoon in this role.
Click to expand...
Locky mentioned something along the lines of if there was a performance clause he would be told about it, which would indicate that the nitty gritty of the contract detail was being done higher up the food chain, presumably White or Morris? The simple fact that the board can't deliver a consistent message and the coach and board are delivering conflicting stories is telling.
 
“There’s performance measures in every contract, so to say there’s no performance measures in Anthony’s contract’s certainly not true,”

This is what white said. It could refer to remuneration/bonuses or something else besides an early termination clause.
White is being a bit clever here IMO.
 
Dexter said:
“There’s performance measures in every contract, so to say there’s no performance measures in Anthony’s contract’s certainly not true,”

This is what white said. It could refer to remuneration/bonuses or something else besides an early termination clause.
White is being a bit clever here IMO.
Click to expand...
A fine example of weasel words!

If you are talking about performance clauses in every contract then you could be referring to something as generic as a clause allowing a person to be sacked if they perform in a negligent manner or damage the clubs reputation, ie: someone gets charged for an offence then that sort of thing, very vague and certainly not referring to winning games on the field.

What a cop out response on such an important question, disappointing!
 
Dexter said:
“There’s performance measures in every contract, so to say there’s no performance measures in Anthony’s contract’s certainly not true,”

This is what white said. It could refer to remuneration/bonuses or something else besides an early termination clause.
White is being a bit clever here IMO.
Click to expand...
To be honest, the consistent answer should have always been, the terms of the contract are confidential between the parties and we are all comfortable with the contract that has been agreed.
 
Dexter said:
“There’s performance measures in every contract, so to say there’s no performance measures in Anthony’s contract’s certainly not true,”

This is what white said. It could refer to remuneration/bonuses or something else besides an early termination clause.
White is being a bit clever here IMO.
Click to expand...
It could literally mean there's a performance bonus for winning a premiership/top 4, etc. Means nothing and is just sneaky wording.
 
Locky888 said:
They need to get to the bottom of this performance clause issue. Either way, heads needs to roll for not placing a performance clause or for being unaware of a performance clause or possibly lying about have a performance clause.
Click to expand...
One of two things are possible here:


Either the clause exists and therefore we should use it and Seibold should be punted following this weekends loss.

or

The clause doesn’t exist, which is so professionally reckless it’s bordering on corporate negligence, and therefore the Board and CEO should be punted.
 
Last edited:
A walking fraud. No wonder the players are split. Doesn’t matter how you perform you’ll still get picked
 
kooly87 said:
One of two things are possible here:


Either the clause exists and therefore we should use it and Seibold should be punted following this weekends loss.

or

The clause doesn’t exist, which is so professionally reckless it’s bordering on corporate negligence, and therefore the Board and CEO should be punted.
Click to expand...

Apparently the performance clauses kick in after 2 years.
 
New Posts

Unread

Watch

YouTube
0 0 559
1:22:15
NSWRL Round 19, 1993 - Canberra Raiders vs Brisbane Broncos
View full media list »

Active Now

  • Old Mate
  • broncsgoat
  • Robboi_321
  • MrTickyMcG
  • RolledOates
Total: 63 (members: 6, guests: 57)
Robots: 361
Top
  AdBlock Message
Please consider adding BHQ to your Adblock Whitelist. We do our best to make sure it doesn't affect your experience on the website, and the funds help us pay server and software costs.