: Thu Mar 19, 2009 9:18 am  

MQBlank wrote:

think i read the RFL were going to take a week to think about what "training" was, so i guess it will be next tues\weds

I hope that once the RL have decided what 'training' is they will pass this on to Steve McNamara and his coaching team

Judging by last Sunday they could probably do with the information

: Thu Mar 19, 2009 9:37 am  

If as claimed he's only 2-3 weeks away from full training and the club are still pushing to release him does that either indicates they don't believe he will be fit to play in the short to medum term or they are looking to free some cap space.

If they are using the contract clause to free cap space does that indicate someone is lined up to come in?

: Thu Mar 19, 2009 11:00 am  

childofthenorthern wrote:

If as claimed he's only 2-3 weeks away from full training and the club are still pushing to release him does that either indicates they don't believe he will be fit to play in the short to medum term or they are looking to free some cap space.

If they are using the contract clause to free cap space does that indicate someone is lined up to come in?

I think it indicates both. They clearly dont think he will be fit enough soon enough for the first team and maybe they fear even if he does return to some definition of "full fitness" that he wont stay there long enough to merit his portion of the cap money.

I doubt we'll see him on the pitch in a Bulls shirt again.

: Thu Mar 19, 2009 11:29 am  

Duckman wrote:

I think it indicates both. They clearly dont think he will be fit enough soon enough for the first team and maybe they fear even if he does return to some definition of "full fitness" that he wont stay there long enough to merit his portion of the cap money.

I doubt we'll see him on the pitch in a Bulls shirt again.

So do I. Whilst you can't blame the guy for trying to protect his own financial interests, seems to me he clearly wouldn't be doing it if he knew he was well in line for a recall to first team action.

It's a pity it all turned sour, as he was a big lummox of a man, with a proven ability to socre tries, which he demonstrated in the short time he was ever on the pitch here, and whatever else, tries isn't something we've been over-burdened with so far.

I also don't think people should under-estimate the disruptive effect of having paid a considerable amount of money to a fairly major signing which has through no fault of the Bulls gone so pear shaped.

paulwalker71 wrote:

I hope that once the RL have decided what 'training' is they will pass this on to Steve McNamara and his coaching team

Judging by last Sunday they could probably do with the information

Fantastic. Haven't you got enough McNamara-is-crap threads without gratuitously trying to turn this into one?

: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:33 pm  

Do we know where this whole "training" thing is gonna end up? Because surely when you sign a contract it is to "Play for the Bulls?" And then there is this 26 weeks release clause or whatever? Does that mean that aslong as a player can train he is still fullfilling his contract, regardless of whether or not he is training at his maximum and to the same level as the team. Yeah he may not warrent a place but in my opinion if he cant train with the squad he's not training! Bradfords eagerness to release him suggests to me there is something occuring inside Odsal. Im wondering just how good a half back your willing to pay for......

: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:35 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

So do I. Whilst you can't blame the guy for trying to protect his own financial interests, seems to me he clearly wouldn't be doing it if he knew he was well in line for a recall to first team action.

I also don't think people should under-estimate the disruptive effect of having paid a considerable amount of money to a fairly major signing which has through no fault of the Bulls gone so pear shaped.

Now dont you go offering sensible reasons why some things aren't the clubs fault. As well as it being the clubs fault that we appear to have suffered an unrecoverable injury to a very well paid back - money we could use to recruit a half back or other good back, I think its clearly Maccas fault the power steering pump had gone on my Focus, damn him.

On the tribunal I suspect we would all try similar actions to protect 18 months worth of good earnings. I hope when he does move on he can recover his fitness and find a place in another club and can continue his career, as he has potential as parts of his try record shows - played 9 scored 6 for us in 2007 and 15 in 25 games for the Broncos in 2006.

: Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:21 pm  

Fantastic. Haven't you got enough McNamara-is-crap threads without gratuitously trying to turn this into one?

Chill. It was meant as a humourous aside

On the matter of Tupou, it seems to me that the club are looking to cut their losses, both from a point of view of saving on the salary cap, and in terms of getting rid of a player who isn't really offering anything - and seems unlikely to do so.

Whilst he obviously has talent, and is a big brute of a man, there has to be question marks about whether he really has the heart and the commitment to really succeed. How often does he run and tackle in a way which takes advantage of his physical presence?

: Thu Mar 19, 2009 3:43 pm  

paulwalker71 wrote:

Chill. It was meant as a humourous aside

You're new, and maybe I over-reacted, it's just that for some months now it seemed for a while that every thread, even on say Patagonian agriculture, was gatecrashed by fools having digs at McNamara, and it grates. To say the least.

paulwalker71 wrote:

On the matter of Tupou, it seems to me that the club are looking to cut their losses, both from a point of view of saving on the salary cap, and in terms of getting rid of a player who isn't really offering anything - and seems unlikely to do so.

Probably about right, but more probably the need to use these funds better elsewhere is paramount.

: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:13 pm  

I do find this strange. I've always believed that if a player is injured the club should honour his contract. Players put their bodies on the line every time they take to the field. If they are injured in the process they shouldnt lose their livelihood.

This may be complicated if the injury that is keeping him out was originally incurred on international duty and I can accept that there may be circumstances where it is right to tear up the contract eg if the player is not genuinely trying to get fit. But as a general principle I think the clubs should play their injured players and then re-claim the money from their insurance. Or am I missing something?

[Bullseye]

: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:23 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

I do find this strange. I've always believed that if a player is injured the club should honour his contract. Players put their bodies on the line every time they take to the field. If they are injured in the process they shouldnt lose their livelihood.

This may be complicated if the injury that is keeping him out was originally incurred on international duty and I can accept that there may be circumstances where it is right to tear up the contract eg if the player is not genuinely trying to get fit. But as a general principle I think the clubs should play their injured players and then re-claim the money from their insurance. Or am I missing something?

Maybe the insurance payout itsn't forthcoming on this occasion because the injury was sustained playing for NZ? It wouldn't be the first time.