NEWS Reece Walsh to save QLD

[Galah]

I like Arrow agree we should've kept him, I seem to recall the rationale behind him leaving was that we had Carrigan looming who was equally as good (also debatable).

Again another **** up from retention department, carrigan is a prop arrow is a lock

 

[1910]

Nobody is arguing that this might be acceptable for a couple of your absolute best prospects once you've seen them play a bit of senior football at a minimum, but we're talking specifically about Walsh here, or at least that's how it started.

To stop people taking to Walsh at barely 18 years old today, you'd need to have made this call back when he was 16 or just barely 17 and still in high school (he would have barely played much high level high school football at this point mind you) and if you're doing that sort of thing on a regular basis you're just not going to have a very high strike rate for success.

The gap between making a call like that on a 19 year old Fifita who is already playing Queensland Cup, and in his case NRL and State of Origin, is vastly different to doing it with a 16 or 17 year old high school student like Walsh would need to have to been in this example.

Yes, in broad strokes out recruitment and retention has been horrendous, but I think in the Walsh example specifically, it might be clutching at straws a little to suggest the Broncos needed to act more decisively at an earlier age.

More specifically make the call last year, coming off shoulder op when he was 17 hadn't played any senior football, he wasn't playing at all and hadn't played since September 2019.

Another 12 months on, about to start ISC, turned 18 is the time to offer NRL deals and they've made a fair deal.

Everyone just using the Wynnum trial and saying I would have signed him three years ago is talking out of their arse.

 

[Lockysillegitimatechild]

Su'A, Tino (yes this is a stretch I know), Collins, Taylor, Walker.

Yes some of these are a stretch but as mentioned above, let's see in 12 months. Right now, nothing has happened either way, so it is honestly a lot of hysteria about things not have happened yet. We just want to see these kids show some faith in the club and stay, we want things to be positive about.

All of those bar walker are a stretch.....
sua and Taylor were let go bcos of opportunities that we couldn't promise them. They were choices, not losses.
Collins was behind a long list of middle forwards, and despite how good he has become I still think he'd be unesecary given all the young middle forwards of promise we have.
Tino was always massively promising but we couldn't keep him, fifita and Haas all happy and on big wages moving forward. If fifita didn't leave it was still the right decision despite the hype he got last year.
Even walker is a stretch given we were competing against the roosters. Who honestly knows what bet politis player with his that day on the golf course and he wasn't fully with us yet anyway.

 

[Kooly87]

If we're not willing to be able to man up and make a call on whether we think someone like Walsh will develop into a good first grader by the time they are 16/17 years old then why are we bothering to develop players at all? Nobody is suggesting you offer an enormous long term contract, only that what you are going to offer, you do it while you still have the upper hand of exclusivity instead of trying to outbid everyone unnecessarily.

Yes he has very little experience, yes its a gamble, no we won't get every decision right... but I'd damn well prefer the Broncos saddle up and place a few bets and live by their choices than simply allow open season on our playing roster and we're stuck with whoever is left.

We do make those calls. We make them all the time. How do you think he got his current deal in the first place, by accident?

He was already on what would have been at least a 2-3 year deal that he signed as a literal kid in high school that would have taken him up to 19 years old with no one able to talk to him until he was over 18.

If what you're arguing is that we should have signed him up longer, then yes, by default you are suggesting we offer enormous long term contracts to children, because no promising 16 year old kid is going to sign a 4+ year deal as a high schooler for peanuts so if you want them locked up that long then you'd need to pay up. We can do that very occasionally for exceptional talent like Haas, but once you're trying to do that several times a year with multiple kids, you wind up with a heap of kids on too much money and maybe one or two that actually cuts it at NRL level.

A 16 or 17 year old kid being offered a deal while he's still in school that takes him past his 19th birthday does not sound like an unreasonable deal for either party and I don't see how any reasonable person could see otherwise.

 

[Fozz]

But left before they peaked, so not really a huge return on their investment. Especially considering how Tedesco has gone since.

Frankly I'd rather lose a player before they've played a game for us than lose someone like Fifita where you know how good they are and now another team is reaping the rewards for it.

I can understand that but at 50 games, you've got an idea of how much they are worth and if you should build around them or not. The playing field is more even, loyalty is more of a factor. Meanwhile the situation here is some cashed up club paying overs based purely on potential.

 

[McHunt]

Everyone just using the Wynnum trial and saying I would have signed him three years ago is talking out of their arse.

Reporting for duty

 

[HarryAllan7]

We do make those calls. We make them all the time. How do you think he got his current deal in the first place, by accident?

He was already on what would have been at least a 2-3 year deal that he signed as a literal kid in high school that would have taken him up to 19 years old with no one able to talk to him until he was over 18.

If what you're arguing is that we should have signed him up longer, then yes, by default you are suggesting we offer enormous long term contracts to children, because no promising 16 year old kid is going to sign a 4+ year deal as a high schooler for peanuts so if you want them locked up that long then you'd need to pay up. We can do that very occasionally for exceptional talent like Haas, but once you're trying to do that several times a year with multiple kids, you wind up with a heap of kids on too much money and maybe one or two that actually cuts it at NRL level.

A 16 or 17 year old kid being offered a deal while he's still in school that takes him past his 19th birthday does not sound like an unreasonable deal for either party and I don't see how any reasonable person could see otherwise.

I'm definitely not suggesting a longer deal back then and I'm not suggesting we don't make recruitment calls on young kids, obviously we do.

What I'm suggesting is that if everyone thinks this kid is such a potential superstar at such a key position and we had him locked up with exclusive rights to negotiate his future, why didn't we extend his tenure before he became poachable by other clubs? My point was that we should have the knowledge and confidence to know whether he's worth the gamble and if so, then lock him up ahead of time rather than shooting ourselves in the foot by waiting to compete in an open market.

The fact that he has so little experience is even more reason... if you're a young professional footballer and the only club you've ever known gives you a contract extension and vote of confidence and tells you they need it signed before you're a free agent, how many kids are going to turn that down on the chance they become an instant superstar? I'm willing to bet not many and we should be using that to our advantage in situations like this.

Perhaps we tried and he refused, I'm not sure, but it seems like the MO of our retention / recruitment team to not even begin negotiating until its too late and everyone can throw their hat in the ring to tempt that player away and drive his price up.

Constant, intelligent, shorter term extensions BEFORE its contract renewal time is the way to approach this... not wait until contract is up then hope the player stays for less money because 'we are the Broncos'... this worked in the old days, but they're loooooong gone and we need to adapt.

 

[theshed]

More specifically make the call last year, coming off shoulder op when he was 17 hadn't played any senior football, he wasn't playing at all and hadn't played since September 2019.

Another 12 months on, about to start ISC, turned 18 is the time to offer NRL deals and they've made a fair deal.

Everyone just using the Wynnum trial and saying I would have signed him three years ago is talking out of their arse.

It’s the accumulated frustration of continual mishandling of roster and retention management.

Walsh is just another example that can be justified in a vacuum but the clubs approach to retention is amateur compared to the good clubs. There is no justifying how many players are off contract at seasons end. It is completely putting the club in a weakened negotiation position and going through each example and finding ways to justify them without stepping back and seeing there’s a problem is exactly how the club ended up dead by a thousand cuts to begin with.

 

[ivanhungryjak]

Perhaps we would have more chance of keeping these young blokes if we put more effort into them and their families (I’m thinking here of the way we allegedly treated Sam Walker and his family as opposed to uncle Nick).

 

[Wolfie]

I like Arrow agree we should've kept him, I seem to recall the rationale behind him leaving was that we had Carrigan looming who was equally as good (also debatable).

We wanted to keep Jai, we offered him a contract but we couldnt match the Titans offer.

 

[Renegade]

We wanted to keep Jai, we offered him a contract but we couldnt match the Titans offer.

Fair enough!

 

[mstreet]

Can't decide if BHQ is bi-polar or manic depressant. A lot of sky is falling in talk...I would prefer a team of 30 ordinary players, surrounded by outstanding administrators and football staff. Give me Jack Reed or Micheal De Vere any day over Cheque book mercenaries. Fix that, and the rest will fall into place. None of us knew much, if anything, about Walsh prior to a trial game; "A trial game". Desperate clubs, do desperate things, and it always ends the same. I'm wrapped the club showed back bone in the Fifita saga. Walsh should be focusing on school, mate's, and enjoying football. Far too young for this crap. Recipe for an implosion. All players should want to do an apprenticeship; pay their dues. Big contracts should only come from big consistent results. It would be awesome if the NRL could bring in an apprentice style system. Can only earn 100k first year; 125k 2nd; 150k in 3rd...take money out of the equation. Focus becomes, where can I learn the most and be the happiest. Just a clue, the cart is suppose to go behind the horse...people will seek us out again and stay for less, when we fix administration, and football staff. You can't buy loyalty, character or culture.

 

[Renegade]

Personally I'd love an idea where the first 3 years of a contract can only be at x wage.
I think some American sports have a similar rule?

 

[McHunt]

Personally I'd love an idea where the first 3 years of a contract can only be at x wage.
I think some American sports have a similar rule?

Also Soviet Union.

 

[Renegade]

Also Soviet Union.

Crush the bourgeoisie

 

[holdzy]

Crush the bourgeoisie

 

[Galah]

Personally I'd love an idea where the first 3 years of a contract can only be at x wage.
I think some American sports have a similar rule?

Nhl have ELC entry level contracts that’s for three years, then they are RFA restricted free agent where they own the rights to the players contract till they’re 27 I believe. Then they can test the market as a UFA. If A team wants that player they either try and trade for him or wait until he is an RFA to “offer sheet him” and depending on the price of the contract and if the team can’t match it, the team that did the offer has to pay up draft picks, if it’s say an 8 mill+ contract a year it could be up to three first round pics for the next consecutive years. You also sour the two organisations. It’s still done but very rarely.

I’ve probably missed a bit but you get the idea. It is a good system.

also no one outside of the team that owns his rights can talk to him or his manager unless he is a ufa. HUGE FINES if they do.

I must add it only works because they have a draft. Teams could hoard too many players for cheap. My big contract one for nrl would be no one is allowed to talk to the player or manager until they are officially a free agent, not a year before.

 

[heartly87]

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.

The problem is we get hung up on these kids and that is what has come round and kicked us in the butt. We need to keep the ones that want to stay for fair price, not pay more then they are worth trying to keep them. Don't low ball them but make a good offer and move on. Look outside our own nursery as needed. There are a lot of potential players going around.

Its the only way forward unless the NRL starts rewarding Jr development because right now all it really does is service the league. Interestingly this club mind set of development pathway right into our NRL squad started back in 2006. Go figure.

Elite Player Development

Elite Player Development

www.broncos.com.au