Copley or Reed

[Unbreakable]

I think a very high majority on this forum would happily keep Copley and give Reed the flick, but it isn't as simple as that as someone was saying earlier, you have to find someone willing to take their current contract, there's more or less nobody in the NRL who would take Reed for 2 seasons at whatever he's on ($350k-$400k rings a bell), so we're probably stuck with him unfortunately, at least until the end of this season. (It's a lot easier to move a guy that only has 1 year left on his deal, so if it doesn't work out for the other team there's no long-term attachments)

 

[Big Pete]

our Guru BP

I'm not a guru, I'm just a very naughty boy. :laugh:

It's a real shame to lose Copley. I was looking forward to him taking the 4 Jersey.. But we have signed a talent that you just don't have the opportunity to sign very often

I agree with all of this

that has had more than enough time to prove his worth, which sadly he has fallen short of..

I don't necessarily agree with this part.

I thought he was one of the Broncos best in 2014 and it was only injury that held him back in 2015. It wasn't like he was hopeless through out the year and I thought he was one of the Broncos better players in a couple of games (namely the Roosters clash). From there he kept getting injured and could just never settle.

It wasn't like he was a one season wonder either. I thought the Broncos really missed him in 2012 and his return coincided with the Broncos snapping their losing streak. Does anyone remember the game Copley got injured? They cross down to Locky who's giving an update on Dale and Locky's saying 'he'll be right, he should be back out any minute'. Meanwhile there's footage of Copley calling it a night and suiting up.

Poor ol' Locky, he's had to put up with some crud in his time.

Back to Copley and my point is that it isn't really his fault and if he was given an opportunity I believe he'd be the better option. However as far as the cookie crumbles and the fact he's had seven pre-seasons with the senior squad, I can see that point.

 

[broncos4life]

Who overrates Copley?

Foordy.

 

[broncos4life]

I think a very high majority on this forum would happily keep Copley and give Reed the flick, but it isn't as simple as that as someone was saying earlier, you have to find someone willing to take their current contract, there's more or less nobody in the NRL who would take Reed for 2 seasons at whatever he's on ($350k-$400k rings a bell), so we're probably stuck with him unfortunately, at least until the end of this season. (It's a lot easier to move a guy that only has 1 year left on his deal, so if it doesn't work out for the other team there's no long-term attachments)

It was discussed like a day ago that is on 250k.

 

[Big Pete]

Foordy.

I think he's spot on with Copley.

He's just off on Reed.

I think a large part is that because one or two vocal trolls made the point of bagging Hook whenever he'd select Reed. Going as far to say that it isn't something Bennett would do which ended up being wrong of course.

While most people would have dropped it and realised the window of opportunity was well and truly shut, Foordy kept trying to instigate issues and lumped people together. Since then, he's never been able to move on.

On the other side of the coin, there's definitely this practice going on that whenever a player is shown the door suddenly they're not as good as they once were or they're overrated and the Broncos always had better options anyhow.

It's not a Broncos thing either, every club does it. My personal favourite was watching Raiders fans turn on Milford and death-ride him through out the season till he shut them all up. It happens and it's fickle.

 

[Unbreakable]

It was discussed like a day ago that is on 250k.

Is that confirmed anywhere? Only thing I can find regarding his signing was titled "$2m coup for Broncos", which was relating to Reed signing for 4 seasons and Gillett signing for 3 seasons.

$250k doesn't add up for Reed, I doubt they were paying him less than Gillett but signing him to a longer deal.

 

[Kimlo]

Is that confirmed anywhere? Only thing I can find regarding his signing was titled "$2m coup for Broncos", which was relating to Reed signing for 4 seasons and Gillett signing for 3 seasons.

$250k doesn't add up for Reed, I doubt they were paying him less than Gillett but signing him to a longer deal.

It was reported as a $2m coup, correct, which was a four year contract for Reed, and three years for Gillett.

1m for 3 years for Gillett = 333k
1m for 4 years for Reed = 250k

Nothing's official with NRL wages, but at the time, the news reported it that way.

 

[Unbreakable]

It was reported as a $2m coup, correct, which was a four year contract for Reed, and three years for Gillett.

1m for 3 years for Gillett = 333k
1m for 4 years for Reed = 250k

Nothing's official with NRL wages, but at the time, the news reported it that way.

That seems incredibly unlikely, I've never seen 333k per year, ever, in any sport.

 

[Kimlo]

Well, I guess we disagree.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I can't find the source now but I remember there being an article at the time that mentioned individual contract values for Gillett and Reed. Obviously there's a good chance they weren't particularly accurate but the Reed figure was somewhere between 200-250k from memory as I remember thinking at the time that it was good value even though I was a Copley fanboy.

 

[Porthoz]

Yes, the values were in the neighbourhood of $250K for Reed and $350K for Gillett per year.

Surely no one in their right mind would pay the ranga more than Gillett or even more than $250K a year. :shocked:

 

[broncos4life]

Yes, the values were in the neighbourhood of $250K for Reed and $350K for Gillett per year.

Surely no one in their right mind would pay the ranga more than Gillett or even more than $250K a year. :shocked:

No they wouldn't and that's why he is such good value.

 

[Financeguy]

That seems incredibly unlikely, I've never seen 333k per year, ever, in any sport.

Why would no contract ever be $1M over 3 years?

Its no more unlikely than any other number. I think Klemmer from the dogs was reported to be 1M for 3 years.

 

[Unbreakable]

Why would no contract ever be $1M over 3 years?

Its no more unlikely than any other number. I think Klemmer from the dogs was reported to be 1M for 3 years.

I never said it wasn't possible, I just said it was unlikely. If we signed Gillett for more money, why would we give him a shorter contract than Reed? If we gave him more money that would indicate that we rated him higher as a prospect at the time, yet we only gave him 3 years, and Reed 4 years? It just doesn't add up for me.

 

[broncos4life]

I never said it wasn't possible, I just said it was unlikely. If we signed Gillett for more money, why would we give him a shorter contract than Reed? If we gave him more money that would indicate that we rated him higher as a prospect at the time, yet we only gave him 3 years, and Reed 4 years? It just doesn't add up for me.

Maybe Reed perferred more years than money. Maybe Gillett backed himself to be worth more in a few years than Reed did. No one knows we weren't part of the contract negotiations.

 

[Unbreakable]

Maybe Reed perferred more years than money. Maybe Gillett backed himself to be worth more in a few years than Reed did. No one knows we weren't part of the contract negotiations.

Which is precisely why I'm sceptical of all these people telling me it's a known fact that he's on $250,000 a year, nobody knows for sure, media usually just speculate figures.

But even if he was on more it wouldn't be much more, certainly no higher than $300,000, I'd hope.

 

[heartly87]

where these contracts not made after their rookie year in 2011. Is it not then believable that Reed would of taken 250k a year for four. These guys played well that year but they are not in the Milf category, you do not just jump from a rookie contract to 450- 500 k a year unless your a milf or RTS.