General Warrior rookies may be cut loose

sebastian_old

Guest
RUGBY LEAGUE WEEK QUOTES:
While on the Warriors, the mail is they'll have to shed at least three players by the time the NRL resolves the issue. Players are unlikely to agree to pay cuts, which means several youngsters will be cut loose, and rival clubs are ready to pounce.
 

sebastian_old

Guest
The news just gets better & better!!
If we have to cut 3 rookies who should they be?
 

Wiki_old

Guest
sebastian said:
RUGBY LEAGUE WEEK QUOTES:
While on the Warriors, the mail is they'll have to shed at least three players by the time the NRL resolves the issue. Players are unlikely to agree to pay cuts, which means several youngsters will be cut loose, and rival clubs are ready to pounce.

Bullshit.

Resolve what? Its resolved.

Shed at least three players? No they wont. They have said that they will honour all legally binding contracts. They won't shed anyone.

What are you talking about that several players will be let loose.

You do know that we are only around $10,000 over the cap this year, right? Players will NOT be let go this year. They have said that. They will just defer a few payments. Yes, players might leave at the end of the year but I highly doubt that it is any of our young guns a) because they aren't costing the club much and b) because the young guns are our future.

And, read my other post about Watson wanting to breed young talent, not purchase senior members.

Stop trying to add fuel to the fire.
 

Ronnie_7_old

Guest
Yeah I agree with Wiki. Like hell they're going to get rid of rookies the are the future of our club. It would be the stupidest move ever if they did.
 

PB_old

Guest
Who knows? I'd say RLW doesn't but let's presume they do. It's easy enough. Players come off contract in 2007 due to reduced cap and or contract expiration. Money is freed up to secure pick of juniors at lower cost.

The hurdle is that there is a small delay in their recognition at senior level but they get a better chance of first grade due to those departures than they would elsewhere. Then it's up to the club backing up the promises of opportunity with the real thing.

E.Watson's utterances would be at odds with RLW however and they went to print before his interview.
 

JonB_old

Guest
Ronnie_7 said:
Yeah I agree with Wiki. Like hell they're going to get rid of rookies the are the future of our club. It would be the stupidest move ever if they did.

Not all rookies are good, it would bother me if they got rid of bad ones.
 

ozbash_old

Guest
i would say thay maybe some of the senior players nearing the end of their contracts would be offered a ' get out' clause if the warriors were close to the cap for 06.

getting rid of people (rookies) who are not even part of the playing squad is senseless...
 

sebastian_old

Guest
Wiki said:
sebastian said:
RUGBY LEAGUE WEEK QUOTES:
While on the Warriors, the mail is they'll have to shed at least three players by the time the NRL resolves the issue. Players are unlikely to agree to pay cuts, which means several youngsters will be cut loose, and rival clubs are ready to pounce.

Bullshit.

Resolve what? Its resolved.

Shed at least three players? No they wont. They have said that they will honour all legally binding contracts. They won't shed anyone.

What are you talking about that several players will be let loose.

You do know that we are only around $10,000 over the cap this year, right? Players will NOT be let go this year. They have said that. They will just defer a few payments. Yes, players might leave at the end of the year but I highly doubt that it is any of our young guns a) because they aren't costing the club much and b) because the young guns are our future.

And, read my other post about Watson wanting to breed young talent, not purchase senior members.

Stop trying to add my fuel to the fire.
Hey i read something about my team that shocked me & i thought you guys should know, you don't believe my quote email rlw@acp.com.au
and tell RLW off, not me.
 

ozbash_old

Guest
JonB said:
Ronnie_7 said:
Yeah I agree with Wiki. Like hell they're going to get rid of rookies the are the future of our club. It would be the stupidest move ever if they did.

Not all rookies are good, it would bother me if they got rid of bad ones.

cool, define a "bad" rookie.
they are in the dev squad because of their potential.
if they dont realise the potential they dont go any further.
 

da mad maori

Guest
I believe we have to cast of at least four players [rookies] to get under the cap for this season.
Thats the cheap way out.
Get rid of any senior players and we could be looking at a settlement that may show that it would be better to keep them.
 

Ronnie_7_old

Guest
JonB said:
Ronnie_7 said:
Yeah I agree with Wiki. Like hell they're going to get rid of rookies the are the future of our club. It would be the stupidest move ever if they did.

Not all rookies are good, it would bother me if they got rid of bad ones.

But thats the reason you keep them though. Because you don't know wether they're bad or good or the next Benji Marshall and Soonny Bill Williams or not if you don't keep them and try them out in first grade
 

ozbash_old

Guest
Ronnie_7 said:
JonB said:
Ronnie_7 said:
Yeah I agree with Wiki. Like hell they're going to get rid of rookies the are the future of our club. It would be the stupidest move ever if they did.

Not all rookies are good, it would bother me if they got rid of bad ones.

But thats the reason you keep them though. Because you don't know wether they're bad or good or the next Benji Marshall and Soonny Bill Williams or not if you don't keep them and try them out in first grade

exactly, get rid of the guys who are proven to be past their best and for me villa springs to mind.
get rid of the young, untried players at your peril.
 

David James_old

Guest
Could this be why Frank Paul is gone?

Personally if it was an option I would be getting rid of

Evarn, he has a great surname, and shown potential - being a five eight trapped in a props body - but never been consistent enough for mine.

Villa is not performing great, but I think he is the kind of player that would really step up against us and hurt us.

I'd rather lose players to the uk than the nrl.
 

Wiki_old

Guest
da mad maori said:
I believe we have to cast of at least four players [rookies] to get under the cap for this season.
Thats the cheap way out.
Get rid of any senior players and we could be looking at a settlement that may show that it would be better to keep them.

Dude where are you getting that from?

Warriors management said we only need to reduce our cap for this season by $10k or something near that ...surely that isn't 4 rookies? lol.
 

KeepingTheFaith_old

Guest
Villa will have a great season this year, don't worry about that. If we have to cut players and the Warriors are serious about really focusing on the youngsters then all the fringe first grade aussie imports should be very nervous.

As for rookies, not every rookie who comes through the club is going to become a career player for their club unfortunately. The Warriors would be crazy to let go of Fai, Rapira, Ah Van, Vuna just to name a few.

Oh and $20 says any rookie who's cut ends up at the Roosters.
 

dazzler13_old

Guest
The Warriros won't 'cut' anyone to get under the cap. What will happen is that young players won't be offered contracts for next year etc - we will lose them to rival clubs because we cannot afford to upgrade their contracts.
 

sebastian_old

Guest
dazzler13 said:
The Warriros won't 'cut' anyone to get under the cap. What will happen is that young players won't be offered contracts for next year etc - we will lose them to rival clubs because we cannot afford to upgrade their contracts.
We could keep the good young players and get rid of the old bad ones, Right?
For e.g evarn-gone fai-keep. That way for one older player we could keep 2 or 3 younger ones.
 

mattyj_old

Guest
WRONG we dont need to cut rookies now, we need to sign them NOW when their stock is low.

Sign the guys with huge potential to 2-3yrs deals before they tear the NRL up and ask for 2-3 times more then they are asking for now.

Whats the alternative.....not sign them for longer than this year then give them a crack in NRL then lose them because their stock has gone to high for 2007.

Its the same as the stock market , buy something (or in this case someone) that you have the inside word on that "has the goods" early then laugh all the way to the bank when the "Stock" matures and starts performing.
 

spykid_old

Guest
Actually I think everyone here is in for a few more shocks before kick off next sunday...

The club needs to get under the cap before they kick off. I don't think rookie salaries would go very far in helping that - someone big will go.

Yes the players contracts will be honored - ie they will get paid. But that doesn't mean they play (for us or at all if they're deregistered).

Someone will be out. Watch this space!
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
625
LordGnome_old
Makasene
Replies
17
Views
1K
mt.wellington
mt.wellington
Replies
27
Views
2K
LordGnome_old
Replies
49
Views
3K
Jesbass_old
Replies
6
Views
808
Skinny_Ravs82

Last Game

08 May

10 - 29
3.9 Total Avg Rating
2.2 Your Avg Rating

Highest Rated Player

Lowest Rated Player

Compiled from 13 ratings