NEWS Reece Walsh to save QLD

[Galah]

I’m so sick of this, so we offer him a fair deal yet he didn’t take it because he’s getting bigger offers and now I’m assuming waiting for us to up our deal. the question still remains why was he let to go this far into his contract without getting a new deal done? the perfect age for other teams to come sniffing.

we could have the players we want to keep gone after this season, this organisation is fucked, who in there right mind would let this many players come off contract at the same time honestly? we have a promising young fb which we haven’t had for a very long time and now more then likely we’re going to have overpay just to keep him and he hasn’t even played an nrl game....

here I am complaining about the same shit over and over again.

P.s **** you GUS

 

[Galah]

Well, if we lose Reece there's always Selywn Cobbo. He's nowhere near Walsh's class yet, but he did trial for both Wynnum and the Broncos in the same game. In case you're not on the Cobbo stagecoach yet:

Selwyn's Career Gallops Ahead - southburnett.com.au

A Cherbourg teenager is getting ready to tackle the biggest challenge of his life so far ... a potential rugby league career at the elite level.

southburnett.com.au

Sounds like a good kid with his head screwed on. I like

 

[Kooly87]

Im asking why we made the offer once he was able to have competing offers?

If we tried to extend him with a fair offer before November last year then I retract my comment. But waiting until the final year of a contract only opens the club up to players testing their value which puts you in the position of having to compete with that value.

If we offered him a fair contract before November he could have re-signed with no other interest. Now whatever we offer him will be compared to the warriors monster offer, or Dearden and Cowboys offer, or Staggs and eels/bulldogs offer, or Coates and whichever offers he is getting, or like what just happened with Fifita.

What is the plan then? To keep losing juniors until the reckless clubs finally run out of money and can no longer offer our young players dumb money?

He's just turned 18 years old as it stands right now. How long exactly before 18 years old and with absolutely no senior football ever should we be signing kids up on long term deals?

I hate to say it, but committing long term on a large scale to kids that are well under 18, as would need to be the case here if we did as you suggested, before they've even played senior football, is a really, really bad idea and is going to provide far more failures than successes, because far more promising teenagers still in high school end up bombing than they do becoming Payne Haas or David Fifita.

If we did this, it's our club that we be the reckless ones here. I'm far from a Broncos apologist and our recruitment and retention has been an utter shambles that deserves plenty of criticism for a range of reasons, but this is honestly probably not one of them as it stands right now.

 

[Kooly87]

Sounds like a good kid with his head screwed on. I like

He'll fit in great at Melbourne then.

 

[theshed]

He's just turned 18 years old. How long before 18 should we be signing kids up on long term deals?

I hate to say it, but committing long term on a large scale to kids that are well under 18, as would need to be the case here if we did as you suggested, before they've even played senior football, is a really, really bad idea and is going to provide far more failures than successes, because far more promising teenagers still in high school end up bombing than they do becoming Payne Haas or David Fifita.

What long term deal ? I’m saying sign the 17 year old gun on an appropriate amount for an extra year. It’s a development deal, it doesn’t count toward the cap as far as I understand, and you’d only extend it enough to actually get to see him play against men. Then if he makes that step up, you extend again. Meaning he transitions into the NRL without fielding competent offers. Especially when you know 8 young players are coming off contract in the same year.

obviously you don’t don’t it for every player but you also don’t not do it. Roosters just gave Suaali a huge deal and he’s 17.

 

[Foordy]

the question still remains why was he let to go this far into his contract without getting a new deal done? the perfect age for other teams to come sniffing.

he has 20 months to go on his bloody contract

 

[Galah]

He'll fit in great at Melbourne then.

 

[Galah]

he has 20 months to go on his bloody contract

If it’s short enough for a young promising player to be offered a contract from another team it’s too short...

 

[Foordy]

If it’s short enough for a young promising player to be offered a contract from another team it’s too short...

well then lets sign up every promising player we have to $1 million a year 5 year contract, to ensure they are never targeted by a rival ... what could go wrong

 

[Kooly87]

What long term deal ? I’m saying sign the 17 year old gun on an appropriate amount for an extra year. It’s a development deal, it doesn’t count toward the cap as far as I understand, and you’d only extend it enough to actually get to see him play against men. Then if he makes that step up, you extend again. Meaning he transitions into the NRL without fielding competent offers. Especially when you know 8 young players are coming off contract in the same year.

obviously you don’t don’t it for every player but you also don’t not do it. Roosters just gave Suaali a huge deal and he’s 17.

So he's 17, he's on an existing deal, he's already signed until he turns 19, but we need to extend him at 17 years old and still in school until he turns at least 20 in case he turns out to be a gun?

Your argument isn't wholesale a terrible idea for players that are a little older, but the age of Walsh in this case just simply doesn't add up to being able to make it viable in this example. To have him signed up a year before people can even talk to him in this case would mean he'd need to have been signed up at 16 or 17 years old and committed to us until he was at least 20, so that people couldn't talk to him today when he's 18.

There is no way that can be a viable thing to do for the vast, vast majority of 16 year old kids. It might have worked for Haas, but that is an incredibly rare thing and unlikely to be anything close to the result you could expect regularly.

 

[Sproj]

Why can't we sign this genuinely promising kids, of which Walsh is obviously one, on contracts through to 20? By 19 you are going to have an idea at least of whether they are worth extending or not. Then, get it done with a 2 year extension BEFORE they become avaialble.

At present, we are the Tigers of years ago, let ago any talent we had while trying to keep the kids and then lose them anyway. Regardless of the stupidity of other offers coming in, something has to be done with our recruitment and retention team, this sort of situation where these kids become available happens / has happened with every kid we have other than Haas and Bullemor I think.

All of Flegler, Coates, Dearden, Walsh, Farnworth, Piakura, Fifita, Staggs have become available to official offers from other clubs - this is appalling management, there is no two ways about it.

 

[Kooly87]

If it’s short enough for a young promising player to be offered a contract from another team it’s too short...

Do the maths, take his age today, add 20 months, then subtract the time he's already served on that deal and the age he would have to be when he signed it. The current deal was in place when he was a literal child and extends to past his 19th birthday.

 

[Sproj]

he has 20 months to go on his bloody contract

Didn't @1910 just say it is until the end of this year?

 

[Galah]

well then lets sign up every promising player we have to $1 million a year 5 year contract, to ensure they are never targeted by a rival ... what could go wrong

No, that would be up to the recruiting and retention department to make at least some good decisions, considering we don’t have a good fb coming through the ranks apart from this one and maybe cobbo, would it not have been wise to make sure we upped his deal even slightly go get at least another year?

 

[Kooly87]

Why can't we sign this genuinely promising kids, of which Walsh is obviously one, on contracts through to 20? By 19 you are going to have an idea at least of whether they are worth extending or not. Then, get it done with a 2 year extension BEFORE they become avaialble.

At present, we are the Tigers of years ago, let ago any talent we had while trying to keep the kids and then lose them anyway. Regardless of the stupidity of other offers coming in, something has to be done with our recruitment and retention team, this sort of situation where these kids become available happens / has happened with every kid we have other than Haas and Bullemor I think.

All of Flegler, Coates, Dearden, Walsh, Farnworth, Piakura, Fifita, Staggs have become available to official offers from other clubs - this is appalling management, there is no two ways about it.

What you've done there is lumped a whole heap of guys into the same group despite them all having vastly different ages and levels of NRL and Queensland Cup or even Senior Football experience.

Walsh was a literal child playing for his High School and Fifita had already played State of Origin when we began negotiations. These are not the same thing and should not be lumped together.

 

[Renegade]

everyone needs to settle down. losing our minds about a kid potentially going to another club on massive overs that hasn't played even 1min of NRL.

he may well be a good NRL player, but it's not as if he's an absolute lock like a Folau or an Inglis type where you just know he's going to be an out and out superstar.

 

[Sproj]

everyone needs to settle down. losing our minds about a kid potentially going to another club on massive overs that hasn't played even 1min of NRL.

he may well be a good NRL player, but it's not as if he's an absolute lock like a Folau or an Inglis type where you just know he's going to be an out and out superstar.

Yeah as a one off, for sure but it is more the fact so many of our kids have become available in recent years, this is a seeming symptom of a larger problem.

 

[Sproj]

What you've done there is lumped a whole heap of guys into the same group despite them all having vastly different ages and levels of NRL and Queensland Cup or even Senior Football experience.

Walsh was a literal child playing for his High School and Fifita had already played State of Origin when we began negotiations. These are not the same thing and should not be lumped together.

Of course I have lumped a lot of players and situations together, I made no comment or attempt to state they were all the same other than the situation is similar in that they have ALL become available to other clubs to negotiate with before being extended.

Take an example, Bradman Best had two years to run on his contract at 19 and just extended two years before coming off contract.

The Storm lost Tino last year because they didn't lock him up, that was a RARE exception to a rule. They managed to have THREE gun hookers locked up until last year and both B.Smith and Grant have two years left. We locked up Haas which was a RARE exception to our rule.

I'm not saying sign these kids up to long term deals on massive overs, this is what you do when you get desperate because offers come in from other clubs...like now.

I'm (and I guess others on this side of the fence) saying these kids, at least the ones identified as the best, should be extended for 1-2 years BEFORE they become available, just to keep the poachers at bay.