OFFICIAL Patrick Carrigan re-signs

BooKhaki said:
Do you really think a player agent takes the clubs salary cap into consideration?

"Oh yeah I was gonna get you more money, but they said the cap is a bit tight so I just stopped negotiating"

I'm not saying they don't need a big fish, all clubs need at least one. I'm saying they shouldn't go over-paying for these guys if they want to be a legitimate title threat in the near future.

Where did I say they should sign people for unders, or play with a QC side? I simply stated spending money for the sake of it is poor business, which really should be common sense, but apparently not.
Click to expand...
What is "common sense" is that they have 10 million to spend and everyone knows it. What is "common sense" is that in business negotiations (hint: it's all in the name) you need to negotiate, and to negotiate you need to have something to bring to the table, and using your "common sense" you should see all they have outside of Bennett at the moment is, yep you guessed it MORE MONEY. Use some common sense. It's business 101....

And BLOODY OATH I think player managers take into account teams salary cap position otherwise I'd strongly recommend they get a new fuvking manager bcos they are quite obviously shit
 
Lockysillegitimatechild said:
THE Dolphins are some trouble if they don't get some players soon. Their leverage gets less and less with every player they target that doesn't sign with them, meaning they'll have to pay more for lower quality. I have read they're playing "hardball/not paying overs", which sounds good in practice but everyone knows they have a spare 10 million in their cap so they expect more....
Click to expand...

I thought this thread was about Pat Carrigan...not the Redcliffe Dolphins.

Quite surprised Wolfie hasn't chucked a wobbly by now

tantrum GIF
 
Lockysillegitimatechild said:
What is "common sense" is that they have 10 million to spend and everyone knows it. What is "common sense" is that in business negotiations (hint: it's all in the name) you need to negotiate, and to negotiate you need to have something to bring to the table, and using your "common sense" you should see all they have outside of Bennett at the moment is, yep you guessed it MORE MONEY. Use some common sense. It's business 101....

And BLOODY OATH I think player managers take into account teams salary cap position otherwise I'd strongly recommend they get a new fuvking manager bcos they are quite obviously shit
Click to expand...
They still need to allocate these funds appropriately and not over spend purely for the sake of it. You think if Redcliffe offer Player A 500k, and Sharks off Player A 450k, that the player will take less money because he knows Redcliffe have more money available? That's just wrong.

It's not a player managers job to worry about a teams salary cap position, and then take that into consideration while negotiating. It's his job to get his client the most money possible, nothing more.
 
Foordy said:
what has anyone at the club said that suggests we want to move Carrigan on
Click to expand...
I think we've all learnt not to take comments from Broncos management at face value. They're saying much the same stuff about Pat that they did about Tom Dearden and Xavier Coates.

It's not that they're being dishonest, but they have a price point in mind, and it might not marry with the player's expectation or ours from their comments.

In Pat's case, all we know is they lowballed his first offer, Pat went to Bennett who stroked his ****, and now we're led to believe the Broncos have raised their bid and hope to retain him.

But this is all in the realm of speculation and gamesmanship by all parties. We saw how this played out with Fifita, Dearden and Staggs. At no point did we know which way it would go from the commentary.
 
BooKhaki said:
They still need to allocate these funds appropriately and not over spend purely for the sake of it. You think if Redcliffe offer Player A 500k, and Sharks off Player A 450k, that the player will take less money because he knows Redcliffe have more money available? That's just wrong.

It's not a player managers job to worry about a teams salary cap position, and then take that into consideration while negotiating. It's his job to get his client the most money possible, nothing more.
Click to expand...
50 grand when there are zero players or Outlook regarding finals/premiership chances.... haha you are kidding. What you are not getting is this is not a level playing field. They DO NOT have any leverage to negotiate a fair deal. Who will take that risk?! They need to get some marquees and ponga or Munster ARE NOT going to leave for the exact same deal they can get at a club where they know the players in the squad and their premiership chances already, would you sign for a start up company for 5% more where you are the very 1st employee and you don't know, and they don't know, what support staff they you will get around you when you could sign for or stay at a club where you can get that money back in rep and sponsorship in a winning team anyway and you know who you'll be working with and a potential premiership in the good teams? **** NO YOU WOULDNT, they NEED to pay more, greater risk means greater pay, it's that simple
 
BooKhaki said:
They still need to allocate these funds appropriately and not over spend purely for the sake of it. You think if Redcliffe offer Player A 500k, and Sharks off Player A 450k, that the player will take less money because he knows Redcliffe have more money available? That's just wrong.

It's not a player managers job to worry about a teams salary cap position, and then take that into consideration while negotiating. It's his job to get his client the most money possible, nothing more.
Click to expand...
...nothing less.
 
Lockysillegitimatechild said:
50 grand when there are zero players or Outlook regarding finals/premiership chances.... haha you are kidding. What you are not getting is this is not a level playing field. They DO NOT have any leverage to negotiate a fair deal. Who will take that risk?! They need to get some marquees and ponga or Munster ARE NOT going to leave for the exact same deal they can get at a club where they know the players in the squad and their premiership chances already, would you sign for a start up company for 5% more where you are the very 1st employee and you don't know, and they don't know, what support staff they you will get around you when you could sign for or stay at a club where you can get that money back in rep and sponsorship in a winning team anyway and you know who you'll be working with and a potential premiership in the good teams? **** NO YOU WOULDNT, they NEED to pay more, greater risk means greater pay, it's that simple
Click to expand...
So you're comparing Redcliffe to other clubs who are a chance of a premiership? You do realise the other 16 clubs aren't premiership chances, right? I'd consider clubs like Warriors, Tigers, Cowboys, Bulldogs and Brisbane etc all worse off than Redcliffe, as Redcliffe at least don't have shitty contracts on their books ruining their cap, so they would be less of a risk. If you wanna compare them to only clubs like Storm, Roosters and panthers, than that is just disingenuous and not even close to true.

So if you would like to argue that Redcliffe will need to outbid 3 or 4 clubs, sure I'll give you that. But if you think they need to pay overs on all contracts, then you're an idiot.
 
BooKhaki said:
So you're comparing Redcliffe to other clubs who are a chance of a premiership? You do realise the other 16 clubs aren't premiership chances, right? I'd consider clubs like Warriors, Tigers, Cowboys, Bulldogs and Brisbane etc all worse off than Redcliffe, as Redcliffe at least don't have shitty contracts on their books ruining their cap, so they would be less of a risk. If you wanna compare them to only clubs like Storm, Roosters and panthers, than that is just disingenuous and not even close to true.

So if you would like to argue that Redcliffe will need to outbid 3 or 4 clubs, sure I'll give you that. But if you think they need to pay overs on all contracts, then you're an idiot.
Click to expand...
I'm not only comparing them to those teams. Don't cherry pick suit your argument. That was 1 part of it. They don't have ANY PLAYERS, they are behind every single club in the nrl! Every single one! The fact that most of the premium talent off contract for 2023 is at the top clubs (which it is!) is ALSO counting against them.

The proof is their signing so far, where's your evidence? I guarantee you their first major signings will be massively overpaid because that is what they'll have to do to get them there. You are living in absolute fairyland
 
Lockysillegitimatechild said:
I'm not only comparing them to those teams. Don't cherry pick suit your argument. That was 1 part of it. They don't have ANY PLAYERS, they are behind every single club in the nrl! Every single one! The fact that most of the premium talent off contract for 2023 is at the top clubs (which it is!) is ALSO counting against them.

The proof is their signing so far, where's your evidence? I guarantee you their first major signings will be massively overpaid because that is what they'll have to do to get them there. You are living in absolute fairyland
Click to expand...
You seriously believe they are behind all clubs? You think a player would take less money to go to a joint like the Cowboys or Tigers ahead of Redcliffe? Kidding yaself.
 
BooKhaki said:
You seriously believe they are behind all clubs? You think a player would take less money to go to a joint like the Cowboys or Tigers ahead of Redcliffe? Kidding yaself.
Click to expand...
They're behind in the sense that most clubs have a core group of established NRL talent already signed up for years. Dolphins have SFA as it stands. It's one thing if the Dolphins sign 1 marquee player but with the current market their depth is going to be paper thin at best. At this point they're getting towards picking up scraps for their inaugural year.
 
The Don said:
They're behind in the sense that most clubs have a core group of established NRL talent already signed up for years. Dolphins have SFA as it stands. It's one thing if the Dolphins sign 1 marquee player but with the current market their depth is going to be paper thin at best. At this point they're getting towards picking up scraps for their inaugural year.
Click to expand...
Have you not seen how horrible most clubs are at identifying talent? With smart recruitment, they can pick the scraps of most clubs unwanted players and challenge for the top 8. Not even taking into consideration several clubs are trying to offload big name players and chip in.
 
New Posts

Unread

Watch

YouTube
0 0 677
1:25:04
NRL Round 14, 2003 - Canberra Raiders vs Brisbane Broncos
View full media list »

Active Now

  • MaroubraBroncos
  • ChewThePhatt
Total: 60 (members: 4, guests: 56)
Robots: 353
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.