Broncos Roster, Signings and Rumours Discussion 2021

[Huge]

Foordy has a point. In fact you keep changing your argument every time your outlandish claims are proven false or inaccurate.

Another who cannot be wrong. Who was that crazy prick banging on about Trump late last year? Seems like the same thing happening here.

 

[BroncsFan]

Yeah imagine the position we’d be in with no player options? (Assuming no new contracts).

No Bird on our books, no Macca, no Lodge beyond his contract end. No Milford. No Oates.

Our salary cap suddenly isn’t looking so bad...

I can only assume the “expert negotiators“ assumed we’d be able to offload these players easily to other clubs by the time any PO were due, hence they cost us nothing, but may help attract a player.

Except the complete opposite ACTUALLY happened...

I'd say Bird, Milf and co would've just been given 4 yr deals in the first place (ie. guaranteed extra year rather than a PO)... so we'd still be in the same position

It's not like Milf and Bird who are looking to secure the biggest deals of their career will accept a mediocre 3 yr deal... they probably always wanted a 4 yr deal and the club for whatever reason said let's make the last year a PO... potentially Milf and Bird wanted a million plus a year and the club said how about slightly lower salary, but it's a PO so if you brain it we can give you a pay bump.

In Oates' case he was the last player signed in 2019... I think he signed in October and was given whatever salary cap was left over. It's not like Oates said I want a 12 month deal with 2yr of PO. More likely he said I want a 3yr deal, but I want more money guaranteed right now. Club reply with how about lower money but the last 2yrs are PO (if you play like you need a pay rise then it's an option, but we're happy to have you on $500k for the next 3yrs regardless)

A PO can work if you're paying unders for the player (Turps on $300k for example)... it gives the player the ability for a pay rise if they play above their ability, but gives the club a potentially lower salary in the first place... unfortunately for us the players with a PO have played well well below their ability and the deals look trash.

But $1m for Milf in 2019 and 2020 looked like a trash deal and that wasn't a PO year

 

[Sproj]

I'd say Bird, Milf and co would've just been given 4 yr deals in the first place (ie. guaranteed extra year rather than a PO)... so we'd still be in the same position

It's not like Milf and Bird who are looking to secure the biggest deals of their career will accept a mediocre 3 yr deal... they probably always wanted a 4 yr deal and the club for whatever reason said let's make the last year a PO... potentially Milf and Bird wanted a million plus a year and the club said how about slightly lower salary, but it's a PO so if you brain it we can give you a pay bump.

In Oates' case he was the last player signed in 2019... I think he signed in October and was given whatever salary cap was left over. It's not like Oates said I want a 12 month deal with 2yr of PO. More likely he said I want a 3yr deal, but I want more money guaranteed right now. Club reply with how about lower money but the last 2yrs are PO (if you play like you need a pay rise then it's an option, but we're happy to have you on $500k for the next 3yrs regardless)

A PO can work if you're paying unders for the player (Turps on $300k for example)... it gives the player the ability for a pay rise if they play above their ability, but gives the club a potentially lower salary in the first place... unfortunately for us the players with a PO have played well well below their ability and the deals look trash.

But $1m for Milf in 2019 and 2020 looked like a trash deal and that wasn't a PO year

I see what you are saying and it is understandable reasoning but none of these guys seem to have been signed on under what other clubs were offering. So the reasoning doesn’t seem to apply here, not because it isn’t logical, simply because it doesn’t look like it happened that way.

If you are signing players at or above market value, which is what has seemingly happened here, then the PO really is of absolutely no value to the club, it gives all the power to the player. No wonder agents would be gunning for them if a club is stupid enough to do it without thought.

One other thing is, if you are going to offer a PO, surely you have it written in a contract that if you leave, even after accepting the PO, you are not entitled to and don’t get paid anything. Obviously I’m referring to the stupidity that is the Bird situation this year.

 

[Morepudding]

I'd say Bird, Milf and co would've just been given 4 yr deals in the first place (ie. guaranteed extra year rather than a PO)... so we'd still be in the same position

It's not like Milf and Bird who are looking to secure the biggest deals of their career will accept a mediocre 3 yr deal... they probably always wanted a 4 yr deal and the club for whatever reason said let's make the last year a PO... potentially Milf and Bird wanted a million plus a year and the club said how about slightly lower salary, but it's a PO so if you brain it we can give you a pay bump.

In Oates' case he was the last player signed in 2019... I think he signed in October and was given whatever salary cap was left over. It's not like Oates said I want a 12 month deal with 2yr of PO. More likely he said I want a 3yr deal, but I want more money guaranteed right now. Club reply with how about lower money but the last 2yrs are PO (if you play like you need a pay rise then it's an option, but we're happy to have you on $500k for the next 3yrs regardless)

A PO can work if you're paying unders for the player (Turps on $300k for example)... it gives the player the ability for a pay rise if they play above their ability, but gives the club a potentially lower salary in the first place... unfortunately for us the players with a PO have played well well below their ability and the deals look trash.

But $1m for Milf in 2019 and 2020 looked like a trash deal and that wasn't a PO year

Giving them a longer deal is better than an option in their favour. Player options are the dumbest thing ever and should be only used on extremely rare circumstances and never on players on big money.

at least if they’re just on a 4 year deal if they do really well they can’t leave and get a better deal somewhere else or a pay rise like Ryan Matterson and Staggs are trying to do. And then the players who do shit (like Oates and Lodge and Ben Hunt at the dragons) because they know they can’t get more anywhere else.

 

[BroncsFan]

I see what you are saying and it is understandable reasoning but none of these guys seem to have been signed on under what other clubs were offering. So the reasoning doesn’t seem to apply here, not because it isn’t logical, simply because it doesn’t look like it happened that way.

If you are signing players at or above market value, which is what has seemingly happened here, then the PO really is of absolutely no value to the club, it gives all the power to the player. No wonder agents would be gunning for them if a club is stupid enough to do it without thought.

One other thing is, if you are going to offer a PO, surely you have it written in a contract that if you leave, even after accepting the PO, you are not entitled to and don’t get paid anything. Obviously I’m referring to the stupidity that is the Bird situation this year.

Completely agree that the club should not be offering PO's when the offer is effectively the peak earning capacity for the player, which is inline with Milf, Bird and Lodge, and I would suggest Oates fall into that category as well ($500k at the end of 2019 assumes Oates is a top tier winger, which he wasnt at that point)... there is absolutely no benefit to the club to pay top tier. The only reasoning is if you are getting them below market value.
- Milf is suggested to be on $950k... apparently Storm came in at $1m
- Bird received $1m offers from knights... his reported salary has fluctuated from $650k-$850k and Milf was reported to be our highest salary ever.
- Lodge reportedly received $1m offers from warriors and $800k offers from Sydney teams... reported to be on $750k with us.
- Oates was reported to be getting $800k offers from dogs... although I think that was rubbish

So whilst they look inline or above market value (based on their current form) they may be slight unders compared to what they were being offered and that could be due to the PO.


I think the use of the PO for Turpin is the correct way to use it (under market value, shortish length for a guy that was looking pretty useful for us). If he brains it we give him a pay bump, if he doesnt $300k isn't too bad for a serviceable hooker over 3yrs.

I think it can also be benefitial for rookie contracts (Staggs, Dearden, Coates, etc.) only because it gives the rookie some security, but also some flexibility to get a pay bump when they make grade. Where the club seems to **** up is not realising when a rookie will come into grade and looking to lock them down before they become available to the rest of the market

 

[theshed]

Giving them a longer deal is better than an option in their favour. Player options are the dumbest thing ever and should be only used on extremely rare circumstances and never on players on big money.

at least if they’re just on a 4 year deal if they do really well they can’t leave and get a better deal somewhere else or a pay rise like Ryan Matterson and Staggs are trying to do. And then the players who do shit (like Oates and Lodge and Ben Hunt at the dragons) because they know they can’t get more anywhere else.

Player options only make sense if a player is after a longer term contract and is willing to agree to unders and back themselves to prove their worth.

For example Adam Reynolds wants a longer contract but South think he’s a risk after a year. So a club could swoop in and say we’ll pay you what you’re worth for next season and take a punt and pay you that again in the second season, but at your age a third year is a risk so we will give you a player option but at a reduced amount - that way you will still get paid in the third year regardless but if you are still performing at the current level you can renegotiate for a higher salary.

2022: $800k, 2023: $800, 2024: $600k (PO)

Or another scenario would be if an English player from SL who has never played NRL wants a club to take a risk and see if they have what it takes to play NRL. A NRL club can be conserve in their off to the Englishman and he can play for under his perceived value with the goal of proving he is NRL standard.

2022: $350k, 2023: $350k (PO)

The player kills it in his debut year and he can then say to the club “see, I told you I’d be the next Josh Hodgson. Let’s revisit that salary or I’ll see what other clubs are willing to pay me”.

It’s mutually beneficial when it comes to clubs taking chances on unknown quantities. When it doesn’t work is the way we do it,
Offer inflated long contracts and then try and get them over the line by offering PO.

 

[BooKhaki]

Foordy has a point. In fact you keep changing your argument every time your outlandish claims are proven false or inaccurate.

What argument have I changed?

that's not what you said.

you said ONLY weak clubs use PO's and a strong clubs like the Storm wouldn't use them at all

Exception that proves the rule.

And in that exception, Storm would use the option in a way to have an unders offer for the player. We use it on huge deals to beg the player to stay.

 

[the_next]

Surely we are not paying Lodge 800k p/yr

 

[john1420]

The issue here is that this forum seems to widely accept that PO are a bad idea.
But really they are not, and can work quite well, it's just the way the Broncos have used them is rubbish.

 

[broncos4life]

The issue here is that this forum seems to widely accept that PO are a bad idea.
But really they are not, and can work quite well, it's just the way the Broncos have used them is rubbish.

How can they ever work well?

If the player plays well they won't take their PO and will either head elsewhere or insist on a larger contract meaning you can never make a good deal and are faced with either losing the player that you had planned within the salary cap to be there or having your cap bent out of shape. If the player sticks it up and can't get a better contract elsewhere they just take their option and you are stuck with them.

 

[007]

How can they ever work well?

If the player plays well they won't take their PO and will either head elsewhere or insist on a larger contract meaning you can never make a good deal and are faced with either losing the player that you had planned within the salary cap to be there or having your cap bent out of shape. If the player sticks it up and can't get a better contract elsewhere they just take their option and you are stuck with them.

If the player plays well, and weve negotiated right, his price will be on the money. If they drop off in form, we refuse to re-sign. If the deal is under market, can simply top up.

 

[Palmer Wapau Fanclub]

How can they ever work well?

If the player plays well they won't take their PO and will either head elsewhere or insist on a larger contract meaning you can never make a good deal and are faced with either losing the player that you had planned within the salary cap to be there or having your cap bent out of shape. If the player sticks it up and can't get a better contract elsewhere they just take their option and you are stuck with them.

Spot on. They never work in the clubs favour, only the players. Every recent player option that has been taken up is bad for the Broncos

 

[Morkel]

The reason for the player options is obviously because we're shit at negotiating in the first place. We didn't agree to PO's because we thought they were a good idea, we obviously agreed to them, on relatively high values, as a way of getting the contract over the line. We just need to be better at selling ourselves, our positives as a club (regardless of recent form) so that players want to sign with us because they want to play here. Not because we threw in a sweetener that guarantees a payday regardless of how they perform. It would go a long way to explaining the complacency of a few of our players as well.

 

[Finbar]

Exception that proves the rule.

Are Canberra and Parramatta also the exceptions that prove the rule, or do you just not understand what that saying means? It's not really an exception when 5 out of 8 of the top teams for both last year and this year have POs in their contracts.

 

[Sproj]

It has already been mentioned on here but B.Smith likely to stay in Melbourne for 2022. Amazing isn't it, a proven player, an international number 9 who is not the preferred option at his club has no one his manager is talking to. Meanwhile, our unproven, even at reserve grade level, fullback has clubs chasing him and signs with the Warriors on a ridiculous deal. Our 50% elite centre is fielding offers of up to a million dollars and other wooden spoon winning kids in Coates and Dearden are being pursued by all and sundry. Plus our latest unproven second row prodigy is being offered 500k+ by a desperate club.

However, this international hooker who is (at worst) very good in a position of need at almost every club is not even getting offers according to his manager. Anyone else see something wrong at all here?

 

[theshed]

It has already been mentioned on here but B.Smith likely to stay in Melbourne for 2022. Amazing isn't it, a proven player, an international number 9 who is not the preferred option at his club has no one his manager is talking to. Meanwhile, our unproven, even at reserve grade level, fullback has clubs chasing him and signs with the Warriors on a ridiculous deal. Our 50% elite centre is fielding offers of up to a million dollars and other wooden spoon winning kids in Coates and Dearden are being pursued by all and sundry. Plus our latest unproven second row prodigy is being offered 500k+ by a desperate club.

However, this international hooker who is (at worst) very good in a position of need at almost every club is not even getting offers according to his manager. Anyone else see something wrong at all here?

When did his manager say this? I thought it was very publicly stated that several clubs including us, the titans, and the bulldogs had all shown interest.

 

[Sproj]

When did his manager say this? I thought it was very publicly stated that several clubs including us, the titans, and the bulldogs had all shown interest.

An article currently up on NRL.com:

Smith to Stay at The Storm in 'Twenty-Chew

 

[1910]

It has already been mentioned on here but B.Smith likely to stay in Melbourne for 2022. Amazing isn't it, a proven player, an international number 9 who is not the preferred option at his club has no one his manager is talking to. Meanwhile, our unproven, even at reserve grade level, fullback has clubs chasing him and signs with the Warriors on a ridiculous deal. Our 50% elite centre is fielding offers of up to a million dollars and other wooden spoon winning kids in Coates and Dearden are being pursued by all and sundry. Plus our latest unproven second row prodigy is being offered 500k+ by a desperate club.

However, this international hooker who is (at worst) very good in a position of need at almost every club is not even getting offers according to his manager. Anyone else see something wrong at all here?

Smith had more moving parts than Walsh- Walsh was just a flat out better deal I will take it. Smith needs a player swap if clubs have tried and haven't come up with anything Storm like or don't think they have anything the Storm would like you are not going to make a stupid suggestion- Manager says no one is talking to us at the moment.

Smith didn't strike me as a get me out of here now situation just a if it can be done situation. If it's not to his liking of course you're going to err on the side of the Storm and stay there not pushing the issue. Might be a different story when there is no swap involved in 12 months.

Broncos players still being in demand just says to me the club is still identifying talent and just not producing it further- that's where the disconnect is located. Clubs still see value and talent and will pay for it and they know that the club is vulnerable to leaving.

Broncos traded on this for years, players didn't even get involved in change, just re-signed without any effort because they wanted to stay and didn't even think about leaving.