- Apr 26, 2008
- 34,578
- 35,550
What are you 12? I disagree with your opinion and you accuse me of hating you (lol!) and now you're acting like a cheer leader for the person that disagreed with me.
The Wayne Bennett Super thread!
- Thread starter Dexter
- Start date
- Status
broncos4life
International Captain
- Oct 5, 2011
- 26,663
- 27,317
I'm not getting into this again, but I just want to know why you keep saying this. How can you be so sure this is true? There has been numerous reports, numerous that he was on way more than this amount. It's not like these 2 CEO's were under when they said that. Furthermore maybe he was on 350k for the remainder of the length of his Bulldogs contract but then much larger amounts for the rest of his contract with us making the overall figure much larger.
- Jan 25, 2013
- 25,705
- 30,048
You're both correct as far as I can tell. He had to be on the same amount as his Bulldogs contract for those remaining years, but after that it wasn't fixed. So the Broncos offered him the equivalent of, say, $550k a year (which would have been worth it if he could get back to 2012 form), but because they were hamstrung in the first two years, made it massively back-dated (hence the reported $350k, $350k, $950k). What it does mean though is that either the Sharks were happy to sign him for the same or more money, or we will be paying the difference this year and next. I would hope that the Broncos were smart though and were able to get the Sharks to agree to a similarly fluctuating deal - ie, a $650k per year deal, but the first 2 years at the same $350k + $950k so that we didn't have to contribute. Perhaps that was part of the terms of the release?
In any case, it is possible that we don't have to contribute at all to Barba's salary over the next two years, it is also possible that we have to contribute some but not a lot, or it's possible that we are paying the majority of his salary. We don't know. Both sides of this argument can believe any of those possibilities, and of course if you already have an opinion of Bennett then it will be easier to believe the possibility that vindicates your current feelings. Or at least more convenient to do so.
In the same way, Barba has been mostly unimpressive this year, and depending on your bias you can blame him or you can blame external factors. You can expect that he'll improve, or you can expect that he'll stagnate.
But here's the sticking point - despite the fact that all of these possibilities are just as likely as each other, if you're going to constantly post an opinion that matches up with a certain bias it makes you less believable. Regardless of how well the point can be argued, it's still going to be perceived as bias. And if you don't bother to argue properly, you deserve every ridicule that comes your way. This is equally valid for both sides of the argument.
I know one person here who has information that can not be made public, can not be verified, but comes from a source that in the past been extremely accurate & reliable. And it points to more than one decision being made that facilitates one side of this whole debate. However, even if this information is true, it doesn't mean that every other decision that Wayne has made has been in a similar vein. In fact I have word from another person who can't be named that doesn't contradict the other information, but paints it in a context that actually favours the other side of the argument. It proves that even the same "decision" can be painted in either a positive or negative light depending on who the artist is. So let's just be a bit more open minded here. If you're inclined to have bias in one direction, the best thing you can do not only for yourself but for everyone's sanity is acknowledge an opposing point of view if it's argued well and makes logical sense. Making it personal, deteriorating it to a slanging match, helps nobody, least of all those that agree with your point of view.
In any case, it is possible that we don't have to contribute at all to Barba's salary over the next two years, it is also possible that we have to contribute some but not a lot, or it's possible that we are paying the majority of his salary. We don't know. Both sides of this argument can believe any of those possibilities, and of course if you already have an opinion of Bennett then it will be easier to believe the possibility that vindicates your current feelings. Or at least more convenient to do so.
In the same way, Barba has been mostly unimpressive this year, and depending on your bias you can blame him or you can blame external factors. You can expect that he'll improve, or you can expect that he'll stagnate.
But here's the sticking point - despite the fact that all of these possibilities are just as likely as each other, if you're going to constantly post an opinion that matches up with a certain bias it makes you less believable. Regardless of how well the point can be argued, it's still going to be perceived as bias. And if you don't bother to argue properly, you deserve every ridicule that comes your way. This is equally valid for both sides of the argument.
I know one person here who has information that can not be made public, can not be verified, but comes from a source that in the past been extremely accurate & reliable. And it points to more than one decision being made that facilitates one side of this whole debate. However, even if this information is true, it doesn't mean that every other decision that Wayne has made has been in a similar vein. In fact I have word from another person who can't be named that doesn't contradict the other information, but paints it in a context that actually favours the other side of the argument. It proves that even the same "decision" can be painted in either a positive or negative light depending on who the artist is. So let's just be a bit more open minded here. If you're inclined to have bias in one direction, the best thing you can do not only for yourself but for everyone's sanity is acknowledge an opposing point of view if it's argued well and makes logical sense. Making it personal, deteriorating it to a slanging match, helps nobody, least of all those that agree with your point of view.
- Mar 4, 2008
- 35,039
- 41,885
Thats exactly what was reported when he initially signed ...
which means from next year he would have been on the bigger money (as his Bulldogs contract ran until the end of 2015)
I for one would have liked to see how he went under Bennett before a possible release. I can believe that Hasler is the only coach in the NRL that could get Barba playing like he did in 2011/12. hell even in the small amount of games he played in 2013, he was still dangerous... Enter Anthony Griffin to ruin all of that
Splinter
NRL Player
- Feb 16, 2013
- 2,818
- 989
This is just absolute rubbish. A good coach would not sign them let alone work with them. He got left with players he doesnt want so he gets rid of them.
Barba and Vidot were probably marked as not wanted from a young age at the Broncos under Bennett prior to his leaving
Last edited:
- Feb 27, 2010
- 30,046
- 12,322
I am talking about the seasons he was contracted at the Bulldogs (until then end of 2015), and although it is no warranty, I'll take the word of both club's CEOs as opposed to some speculative media reports. It's your prerogative to do the opposite I guess...
I don't know, and don' t pretend to know what he was going to be on in 2016, all bets are open on that one, and it is quite possible, even likely, he would be on a heavily backended contract. It doesn't change anything for this year though!
[MENTION=2021]broncospwn[/MENTION], I'm arguing that we can't determine whether the decision to get rid of Barba for Boyd was the correct one, until we're further down the track and we can effectively compare how he and Boyd performed. Using past performance is no indicator either, because both Boyd and Barba were relatively crap the last couple of years.
- Mar 13, 2008
- 6,522
- 2,807
Rumour has it had Des never wanted Barba either. But he still turned him into a Dally M Medallist. He also took a team to the grand final with Kris Keating at halfback. Pretty sure he didn't want him either (it is Kris Keating after all).
Whenever you move clubs you get players that you might not want to sign. Doesn't always means you are better off discarding them.
broncos4life
International Captain
- Oct 5, 2011
- 26,663
- 27,317
Good on Des for doing that, I think you would be hard pressed to find someone that disagrees with the notion that Hasler is one of the best, if not the best coach in the game.
With those you mentioned they were greatly assisted by the massive ball playing forward pack the bulldogs have/had. Whether or not he would have kept them if he didn't have those players could be debated, but I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Getting the best out of his players is definitely one of his best qualities as a coach, although guys like keating are no longer there so he obviously realised he needs better players to win a premiership.
Bennett definitely can't get the absolute best out of every player, however with players that have the right qualities that he knows he can work with, I think he has proven he can get the best out of them.
Personally I am glad that Bennett recognises this 'weakness' that he can't work with every player, and moves onto players he can work with, rather than blindly pursuing something that may not work for him or the team.
mitch222
State of Origin Captain
- Apr 4, 2014
- 8,788
- 8,894
Bennett's calls so far regarding getting rid of players
- Dump Martin Kennedy - currently suspended by the NRL for drug allegations
- Ben Barba - stinking it up majorly at Cronulla. Looks a shadow of his former self
- Josh Hoffman - done SFA for the titans and they are going shit
- Ben Hannant - Didn't look at all interested when we played him. If you cant get up for a game against your old club when they didn't re-sign you then its not good signs ahead.
So far he is 4/4 with the cleanout
- Dump Martin Kennedy - currently suspended by the NRL for drug allegations
- Ben Barba - stinking it up majorly at Cronulla. Looks a shadow of his former self
- Josh Hoffman - done SFA for the titans and they are going shit
- Ben Hannant - Didn't look at all interested when we played him. If you cant get up for a game against your old club when they didn't re-sign you then its not good signs ahead.
So far he is 4/4 with the cleanout
Splinter
NRL Player
- Feb 16, 2013
- 2,818
- 989
They might have won the GF if he had discarded them
- Apr 26, 2008
- 34,578
- 35,550
You do realise how huge that risk is, right? If he stinks it up this year while playing for us (like he has in the first 3 games), then there wouldn't be a club in the game that would risk paying him 900k for the remaining two years of his contract and we're lumped with another Martin Kennedy where another club would get him on base wage and we pay a huge amount for a player we no longer have.
- Feb 27, 2010
- 30,046
- 12,322
It's one year... we took over the Dogs contract for 2014/15 and added 2016 for an undisclosed value.
We're taking over the Knights contract for Boyd this season and added 2 years (2016/2017) for an undisclosed value as well.
I am not arguing Wayne's perspective, or whether he's wrong or right, but why is Boyd any less of a risk than Barba, given the past years performances of both players?
abashii
NRL Player
- Jul 14, 2014
- 2,874
- 5,910
Boyd debuted nearly ten years ago and played consistently well for several years before personal issues led to him having a poor 2014. The coach knows him extremely well and is certain of what Boyd can add to the team. He's played in two grand finals, won the CC medal in one, represented his state and country consistently for the last seven or so years and has up until now never had any serious injuries so is still physically in good shape. And the personal issues which got him out of form are apparently well under control.
Barba debuted 5 or 6 years after Boyd IIRC, has suffered an ongoing ankle injury which is likely to affect his speed and fitness for the future, had one great year, and hasn't had to perform under pressure. In fact I'd say he's shown a bit of weakness under pressure.
Can you see why someone might see Boyd as less of a risk than Barba?
- Apr 26, 2008
- 34,578
- 35,550
Because Barba is on supposedly 900k next year, that's why. If we kept him on, we likely can't afford to buy Gagai for next season, isn't that enough of a reason? Do you honestly think Barba (salary aside, assume it's even) will outplay Boyd this year? Do you genuinely believe Barba wasn't a liability at fullback last year? Do you think he would be worth it as a 900k 5/8 next year?
- Feb 27, 2010
- 30,046
- 12,322
Of course I don't think he's worth 900$K next year. At least, not at this stage.
Yes Barba was a liability at fullback last year, but so was Boyd.
Do I think he will outplay Boyd this season?
I honestly don't know. Boyd has the consistency over the years, although he has been declining over the last couple of them, and was imo never a great FB outside of one very good year at the Dragons.
Barba has more upside, but only if (and that is a big if) he is able to return to his best.
To repeat what I said quite a few times, and given my opinion on the matter has not changed at all:
I would have wanted to see what Barba would've been capable of under Bennett and I definitely don' t think we needed Boyd, regardless of keeping Barba or not, as we had Milford, Hunt, Kahu, Taylor and the Nikorimas with whom I am convinced we could develop an excellent spine.
My biggest worry has always been that Boyd may well cost us one of those youngsters, not Barba.
Yes Barba was a liability at fullback last year, but so was Boyd.
Do I think he will outplay Boyd this season?
I honestly don't know. Boyd has the consistency over the years, although he has been declining over the last couple of them, and was imo never a great FB outside of one very good year at the Dragons.
Barba has more upside, but only if (and that is a big if) he is able to return to his best.
To repeat what I said quite a few times, and given my opinion on the matter has not changed at all:
I would have wanted to see what Barba would've been capable of under Bennett and I definitely don' t think we needed Boyd, regardless of keeping Barba or not, as we had Milford, Hunt, Kahu, Taylor and the Nikorimas with whom I am convinced we could develop an excellent spine.
My biggest worry has always been that Boyd may well cost us one of those youngsters, not Barba.
- Jun 12, 2013
- 14,520
- 17,956
This. I have more faith in Boyd coming good than Barba, given they're seemingly dealing with different demons. The thing that annoys me about Barba though is the whole 5/8 thing. Surely we showed last year that he isn't one? The guys a FB or bench impact player....that's it. I don't feel he's being given the opportunity to get back to his best because everyone wants to play him out of position.
I always had reservations about signing both Barba and Milford and wasn't sure it would work. However, I would have preferred to see it in action before making my mind up.
- Apr 26, 2008
- 34,578
- 35,550
That's all fair enough, and I agree with most of it, but as I said before if he plays for us this year and stinks it up, we've got 900k of the salary cap burnt up on a dud, no one will buy him. Cronulla not only upgraded his deal this year, but signed him on a huge deal for 3 whole years! Barba is a huge winner in this. Boyd IMO, even at his worst is not a liability like Barba, he doesn't struggle under the high ball, he doesn't get shoved back in goal every time, and he doesn't get dragged back 10m if he runs the wrong angle. He was average last year, but that was clearly off field issues which he looks to have fixed, Barba has lost his speed since his ankle injury and that was his main asset. Boyd is pretty quick himself, but his game is far more balanced.
Barba definitely has more upside IF he returns to his best, but I don't think he ever will again.
- Status
Unread
-
The one thing Michael Maguire won’t do after dominant Broncos win- Latest: Mick_Hancock
-
-
-
-
