General The Boyd vs Metcalf debate

Who is your no.7

  • Team Metcalf

    Votes: 7 7.5%

  • Team Boyd

    Votes: 86 92.5%
  • Total voters
    93
Highlights Only (7)
Inruin said:
So what happens if Metcalf goes to market and no clubs come back to him at his current Warriors contract price? I mean, its a fairly big risk for a club to put in $900k+ for an injury prone player that is still relatively unproven at 7. I'm sure there are probably a couple that may be desperate enough. Warriors don't have to and shouldn't be paying any freight whatsoever considering it is the player asking for the release.
Click to expand...
Hopfully it doesn't come to that, and that there are plenty of clubs willing to pay his full salary. But if hypothetically clubs are only willing to go up to 700-800k for him, is it better to pay freight or to keep him here for 900k?
 
Whether he’s being a sook or has some justification really depends on the clubs intentions with Boyd, after his first 3 outstanding games did they approach him about an extension? Before Metcalf had even taken the field - that is a poke in the eye to LM. Remember when the Warriors signed Sam Tomkins and Kevin Locke went off the rails completely? These things happen, but if the new player is better than the old player no one cares in the end.

Or did Luke start kicking up a fuss earlier (about anything, game plan, position, living in Auckland) giving the club more reasons to move past him.

I just don’t really believe, knowing everything they know about Metcalf, they thought they could shoehorn those two in together, maybe they did, so they tried it, the team played like shit, LM got hurt again, and then the boulder really starts rolling downhill.
 
The current situation presents a different lense for CHT also, so will be interested to see what unfolds there.

I read on here he mentioned hes only aftet a single year, but im not sure on the context as didn't see it.

1. Saw the club had sort of leant into the Boyd at 7 and Metcalf with a big deal appeared to be their hopeful 6. So thinks we are potentially in or close to a window. So ill say I want one year, to give himself the potential for a prem through injury/form etc. without locking himself down longer and being 2nd in line at 27.
2. Family now lives in Brissy(unsure how long this has been the case) and would like to be closer to them if possible.
3. Wants to come write poetry on the beautiful sunny Perth coast, enjoy the 1000 odd golf courses and visit me.

If he signs and agrees to a 2-3 year, then he may have just felt his path was blocked at 27 which is fair enough.

I think I would have been a tad more sour on the Metcalf situation at least for this year if we didn't have the seasoned vet in TMM to fill either 6 or 7 if injury is to occur. With the current speed of the game/injuries/headknocks a player such as TMM is more valuable than ever.
 
JustLikeStartingOver said:
Whether he’s being a sook or has some justification really depends on the clubs intentions with Boyd, after his first 3 outstanding games did they approach him about an extension? Before Metcalf had even taken the field - that is a poke in the eye to LM. Remember when the Warriors signed Sam Tomkins and Kevin Locke went off the rails completely? These things happen, but if the new player is better than the old player no one cares in the end.

Or did Luke start kicking up a fuss earlier (about anything, game plan, position, living in Auckland) giving the club more reasons to move past him.

I just don’t really believe, knowing everything they know about Metcalf, they thought they could shoehorn those two in together, maybe they did, so they tried it, the team played like shit, LM got hurt again, and then the boulder really starts rolling downhill.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with your first point about the Warriors waiting to approach a player about their contract extension in case it upsets another, that just goes against all business sense, this is a competitive industry where someone like Boyd could get lured away at any time, not some Mary Poppins baby sitting operation.

What if Metcalf didn't heal while you sat around ignoring the Boyd contract? what if he busted that latest cog in the warm up and you talked to Tanah and he said yeah nah bro, been killing it out here, think I will go where that is desirable.

You cannot under any circumstances hire players by player committee.

With the benefit of hindsight, Luke Metcalf had very little incentive to play well in those two games. Could this explain our team going to shit twice then hey presto they look good again? was there some holding back on Metcalf's part (he wouldn't be the first Warrior to go out there and deliberately play like a busted arse in a position he doesn't like eh Chanze at center anyone?).
 
Phil Gould doesn't fly to New Zealand to look at park footy players.

It is the reason he left the Warriors, because he couldn't get across here with his schedule to look at players.

We should have taken his visit to NZ more seriously by the looks, hope it is true, hope Metcalf goes Dogs.
 
What if the club signed Boyd to 3 years then out told Luke he’s playing 6

What if Lukes manager then requested a please explain and it all went downhill from there ??


Hmmmm….. was it Luke that started all this or was it … 👀
 
MrFrankWhite said:
These clauses wouldnt exist

This is exactly what happened. Wont be written in stone but its obvious to me. Metcalf is a massive injury risk. We had to roll that dice last year, we dont now.

Some how the club has managed to have its cake and eat it too. We signed Mets as the reigning halfback when it looked like we had no other options, and when we found another option, we managed to replace him AND punt his contract. TBH i'm kinda impressed
Click to expand...

Just continuing this conversation here, as it's the correct thread.

Like I said, I would like to see the contract itself, as I doubt every contract would be specialist role driven, otherwise you'd have a hell of time trying to shift players around the way that we do.
 
Beastmode said:
Nah Fuck that

I wouldn’t pay a cent for him to move on

He wants to leave, so take a paycut because your market value has diminished
Click to expand...
The eels have the same mentallty around ryan matterson and look at how bad there roster looks. They may be "in the right", but that doesn't get you the best team. If it comes down to us paying some money to get him out the door. Then surely the option that leaves us with 700-800k to spend on other players is better than having metcalf in NSW grade who may come up a couple of times a year for injury cover. This is still a bussiness fundmentally.
 
Beastmode said:
What if the club signed Boyd to 3 years then out told Luke he’s playing 6

What if Lukes manager then requested a please explain and it all went downhill from there ??


Hmmmm….. was it Luke that started all this or was it … 👀
Click to expand...
Notice that CHTs contract wasn't sorted yet either. I don't think he liked them offering Mets the 6. CHT doesn't seem to like hooker or bench utility. So it seems he's was 6 or nothing and Mets was 7 or nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Playdaball
  • Locked
General Is the Metcalf experience to halves over?
11 12 13
Replies
250
Views
36K
tajhay
  • Poll Poll
General Metcalf - Halfback Replacement 2025
4 5 6
Replies
106
Views
13K
borgy
WahsaurusRex
  • Showcase: Item Showcase: Item
Player Tanah Boyd
11 12 13
Replies
242
Views
22K
Rick O’Shay
Rick O’Shay
1995warriorsfan
Gameday Witzer Pre-Season challenge Dolphins vs Warriors
24 25 26
Replies
507
Views
19K
WAH MAN
Defence
  • Poll Poll
General Player of the year 2025
2 3
Replies
51
Views
7K
Theking267
Back
Top Bottom