NEWS No clause for concern: Seibold not fussed over contract conjecture

Kimlo

Kimlo

International Captain
Senior Staff
Apr 26, 2008
34,580
35,552
Broncos coach Anthony Seibold insists there are no performances clauses in his five-year contract that can trigger his sacking if his team does not achieve certain results.

The subject of Seibold’s contract and performance clauses was a hot one at the coach’s media conference on Thursday due to the events of Monday night when CEO Paul White said on Channel Nine’s 100% Footy "to say that there’s no performance measures in Anthony’s contract is certainly not true".

When asked on several occasions about White’s comments, Seibold reiterated he had a five-year deal with no performance measures, and was also more specific. "I have not got any performance measures that mean if you don't achieve this result, you lose your job," he said. Seibold said he was not aware of White’s comments on Monday night or the context in which he made them.

Channel Nine reporter Danny Weidler had asked: "Paul, is it bad business not to put a get-out clause in to protect yourselves in such a long term deal?" After contacting the Broncos, NRL.com understands although asked a direct question at the time, White chose to answer in generalities and meant Seibold’s contract had "performances measures" or KPIs like every contract.


Seibold has been coaching at various levels for 15 years and has seen enough of the NRL, including the Warriors recently dismissing coach Stephen Kearney well before his contract expired, to know that performance measures are sometimes brutal and results based. "At the end of the day, Paul White or whoever makes the decision, the chairman or our board, if they don't think I'm the right person for the job, I'm man enough to sit down and have a conversation with them," he said. "There are no performance measures in my contract. You get measured by what we do.


"The big one the public sees is the scoreboard, but there are other things like developing players and creating a vision and putting in a framework that we intend to stick the course with. I wasn't aware of those comments. "In every contract ... if you aren't performing and if Paul doesn't think I'm doing my job or the board … then that's their right to make a decision in and around that space."



White spoke on Sunday about how he was backing the vision for the club that Seibold pitched in his interview at the end of 2018. While conceding that losing six games in a row was not part of the plan, he insisted Seibold had to be allowed time to mould a young squad into shape. Seibold is up for the challenge. "It's a big project,” he said, before the team trained to prepare for Saturday night’s home clash with Canterbury. "I hate harping on this, but guys like Tesi [Niu] and Xavier [Coates] are 18-year-old kids.


"We have developed a lot of kids over the last 18 months. We haven't got it right over the last six weeks, no doubt about that. "I thought we got it right early in the season. We were really good for the first 39 minutes against the Warriors. We were good for a similar period against Manly. We just can't seem to put two good halves together. "We continue to work hard and make changes where we need to make changes. It's about being more consistent for longer periods of play. That's been the story since we have come back from the COVID break."Kotoni Staggs returns from a hamstring injury with Herbie Farnworth moving to the wing and Jamayne Isaako dropping out of the line-up.

Source: No clause for concern
 
White was clearly the one weasel-wording. Read into it what you like.
 
White was clearly the one weasel-wording. Read into it what you like.
He sure was. He's too much of a coward to admit he signed off on such a pathetic contract with no protection for the club. How does Seibold repay White? By telling the media multiple times, and then clarifying in no uncertain terms that he can't be fired.

I don't know if it's just me but Seibold and White / Board seem to be disagreeing on a helluva lot lately. The office seems about as united as the team on the field.
 
**** this needs to get sorted asap

This is the same sort of shit that cost us Inglis, and I'm getting the same vibe with Fifita

But outside of that, I'm sick of seeing article after article after article after article AFTER ARTICLE about everything going on.

Whatever happens, get it done quick (public compay legalese can prohibit this I know), circle the wagons and don't talk to anyone
 
It's clear from this that the board needs a broom through it.

Basically:
They either cannot create professional contracts worth a damn that hold people to account for their performance, this is including players like Boyd who have gone to utter **** with player options in their favour even though they have no business being on the field. Ditto with the coach who has taken a team that was reasonably a finals team to chasing a spoon in his second year.​
If they did create professional contracts with the appropriate clauses, then they lack the spine to act on them and make decisions in the best interests of the club, its shareholders and its fans.​
Or even worst - they have the contract clauses but don't actually see that they need to act for the good of the club, shareholders and fans which on top of being blind makes them incompetent to fill those positions....​
 
First thought to mind is this prick is trying to get the Arse. He's been found out and I believe him when he says "I have not got any performance measures that mean if you don't achieve this result, you lose your job," He's gone end of year. How he negotiated a four year deal is anyone's guess, but getting a paid holiday for two years is kind of brilliant. Have to hand it to him.
 
Legendary coach Bob Bax used to sign players up on the back of beer coasters but those days are gone. Even the most basic contracts nowdays have wording regarding the expectations and requirements of the party paying the money of the party doing the job. No matter if that’s building a house, installing a solar system or coaching a football team. Clearly Seibold is alluding to specific KPI's or some other performance reporting and White is referring to basic expectations and requirements of a contract.
 
First thought to mind is this prick is trying to get the Arse. He's been found out and I believe him when he says "I have not got any performance measures that mean if you don't achieve this result, you lose your job," He's gone end of year. How he negotiated a four year deal is anyone's guess, but getting a paid holiday for two years is kind of brilliant. Have to hand it to him.

I actually think there is some merit to this. I think he came here with a plan but it hasn't worked and he has absolutely no idea how to makes things work. I also think he knows he won't get another head coaching gig so he needs to make sure he gets maximum payout.
 
He sure was. He's too much of a coward to admit he signed off on such a pathetic contract with no protection for the club. How does Seibold repay White? By telling the media multiple times, and then clarifying in no uncertain terms that he can't be fired.

I don't know if it's just me but Seibold and White / Board seem to be disagreeing on a helluva lot lately. The office seems about as united as the team on the field.

I think it's worse than that. White is being careful with his words because he doesn't want it to come out that they implemented a 5 year contract for a rookie with no get out clauses because he knows how badly that will reflect on his opportunities for his next job. I also think that is why he is pushing off firing fatso for so long because there will be no doubt to the extent of how much he fucked up then.
 
First thought to mind is this prick is trying to get the Arse. He's been found out and I believe him when he says "I have not got any performance measures that mean if you don't achieve this result, you lose your job," He's gone end of year. How he negotiated a four year deal is anyone's guess, but getting a paid holiday for two years is kind of brilliant. Have to hand it to him.
I don't think it was even Party Pies' work, Isaac Moses has this club's balls in a vice.
 
When the CEO is talking about contract clauses and the chairman talking about shareholders I’m going to believe they don’t think Seibold is the right man for the job. The fact he’s still there means there’s probably nothing they can do short of paying him out. Could be well off but that’s imo.
 
When the CEO is talking about contract clauses and the chairman talking about shareholders I’m going to believe they don’t think Seibold is the right man for the job. The fact he’s still there means there’s probably nothing they can do short of paying him out. Could be well off but that’s imo.
It's sounding more and more like they want to punt him but are waiting for their primary shareholder to make the call and kick in the cash required to make it happen.
 
The way I see it is Pie's pushing back against the media exactly the way Wayne does, the more he tells them to shove it the more they focus on it and that takes focus off the rest of the team. With the exception of channel 9 and Johns, calling for Milfords head, most of the media talk is based around Pies. So he is doing some of the required things of a coach, but sorry I want to see the backs of some of these so called senior leadership players first and then judge Pies on his squad, not Wayne's squad.
 

Unread

Active Now

  • Bucking Beads
  • Gaz
  • jarro65
  • Xzei
  • Socnorb
  • Big Del
  • theshed
  • Sproj
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.