Chris Flannery : Tue May 10, 2011 1:39 pm  

Here's a thought ... the overseas situation is now as follows:

Quota
Flannery
Perry
Soliola
Hohaia

Non-Fed
Perry
Hohaia
Laffranchi
Puletua
Soliola

Even though we have one quota space left, we're maxed out on non-fed players, so we can't sign anyone from the NRL now.

The only overseas players we could sign from another club would be ones that have already been here since before 2008, and that seems highly unlikely.

Now, the logic behind letting Flannery go has always been that he isn't special enough to take up a quota spot. But the reality now is that we couldn't sign another overseas player even if Flannery left (as a pre-2008 signing he only counts on the quota list).

So, with this in mind, I'd say it's worth rethinking our position over Flannery. Should we make him an offer for another year or two, taking advantage of his versatility and reliability, or should we let him go anyway and clear a path for one of our younger back rowers?

Re: Chris Flannery : Tue May 10, 2011 1:52 pm  

I'm not even sure that you can sign/resign a player who was here before 2008 and he still be exempt. Was that stipulation not just for the length of the already signed contract?

The overseas limits really are a minefield of red tape, smoke and mirrors.

I thought it only applied to contracts signed pre 2008, and therefore any new contracts would come under the new rules.

Re: Chris Flannery : Tue May 10, 2011 1:54 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

I'm not even sure that you can sign/resign a player who was here before 2008 and he still be exempt. Was that stipulation not just for the length of the already signed contract?

The overseas limits really are a minefield of red tape, smoke and mirrors.

They are indeed. I was led to believe in a thread on the VT that the exemption lasts until retirement.

Re: Chris Flannery : Tue May 10, 2011 1:58 pm  

Dux wrote:

So, with this in mind, I'd say it's worth rethinking our position over Flannery. Should we make him an offer for another year or two, taking advantage of his versatility and reliability, or should we let him go anyway and clear a path for one of our younger back rowers?

You've still got to pay him, though. Unless you can re-sign him cheap, I say let him go. With laffranchi coming in our 1st choice back row trio will be him, Sia and Wilkin and we know Royce likes to start a prop like Tony P or Clough at 13. With Magennis, Dixon and Ashurt all in reserve, I'd say it would be folly to match what Flanders could be getting elsewhere.

Re: Chris Flannery : Tue May 10, 2011 2:02 pm  

Offside Monkey wrote:

With laffranchi coming in our 1st choice back row trio will be him, Sia and Wilkin and we know Royce likes to start a prop like Tony P or Clough at 13.

Royce has gone on record saying he'll be using Laffranchi as a prop, though. But on the limited resources I take your point. A lot will depend on how what we're paying Hohaia and Laffranchi relates to what we offered Eastmond and Graham.

Re: Chris Flannery : Tue May 10, 2011 2:05 pm  

Offside Monkey wrote:

With Magennis, Dixon and Ashurt all in reserve, I'd say it would be folly to match what Flanders could be getting elsewhere.

True. If a quality back became available then I think the money would be better spent there. How many are available, though?

Re: Chris Flannery : Tue May 10, 2011 2:12 pm  

So are you suggesting we cannot possibly sign Waterhouse now? Rumours and news articles a plenty in Aus about him joining Saints still.

Re: Chris Flannery : Tue May 10, 2011 2:26 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

So are you suggesting we cannot possibly sign Waterhouse now? Rumours and news articles a plenty in Aus about him joining Saints still.

Not as far as I can see. The only way it would be possible would be if TP signed his first contract with us before the non-fed regulations came into force, but as he only joined us in 2009 I can't see that being the case. I must admit I don't know the exact cut off point, but I think it's the beginning of the '08 season (presumably TP signed for us midway through that season).

Re: Chris Flannery : Tue May 10, 2011 5:56 pm  

To be quiet honest I am happy with the pack we have now and there is no need to go overseas in that department. The backs is another matter mind and if a quality left centre became available I can see this could restrict us from signing him. However so far I am really happy with the signings for 2012 and its only slightly eased the pain of losing Kyle Eastmond and more importantly James Graham. I dont believe we should offer Chris Flannery a new contract because I believe there are better English Back Row Forwards that can become available. Flannery has done a job for us and thats about it really.

Re: Chris Flannery : Tue May 10, 2011 6:32 pm  

I thought Laffranchi was coming over on an Italian passport, if he is he won`t count on any quotas.