Rugby League Roosters - News, Signings and Rumours

The_Fanatical_Rooster

Junior Member
Oct 12, 2019
29
7
3
Sydney north
2020 Squad
Thanks ALX.

I don't think we are complaining for the sake of it, but wanted to point out some aspects of the game that we felt a bit hard done by. That is reasonable. I am sure Mr Bennett would do the same. Just because we won doesn't automatically mean we should not raise any concerns. Imagine if the result went the other way - you wouldn't hear a boo out of most of the media or other club supporters. I find that particularly interesting, especially when it was clear that the 'six again' incident actually went the right way in the end. Virtually nothing is said about that. Anyway, I see nothing wrong with Robbo's actions, and quite obviously the NRL doesn't either.

In terms of player priorities, I think SST and Butcher are our highest, followed by JWH, Latrell, then Friendy. As much as I admire Jake, I think a one year deal might be reasonable, same as Aubo for 2020. It is interesting that the Bulldogs might have pulled out of the race; hopefully, that will strengthen our position.

Interesting times indeed!
 

ALX22

Well-Known Member
May 2, 2013
7,116
836
113
Sunshine Coast
The Sydney Roosters have today advised the management of Latrell Mitchell that the Club’s offer for 2021 and beyond has been withdrawn following discussions with Latrell today.

 

S J

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 2, 2013
21,434
1,958
113
106
Time Traveller
The Sydney Roosters have today advised the management of Latrell Mitchell that the Club’s offer for 2021 and beyond has been withdrawn following discussions with Latrell today.

This could be a big one.
 

The_Fanatical_Rooster

Junior Member
Oct 12, 2019
29
7
3
Sydney north
It is. I am proud at how the club has handled this. It has not buckled under the pressure from Latrell and outside influences. The club is bigger than any one player. I hope that Latrell has not bitten off more than he can handle. The Bulldogs look to have removed their offer, so that leaves Souths and possibly the Wests Tigers. I think that he needs to part ways for next year as well, as his involvement with the team in 2020 will only be a negative influence. It will be interesting to see how this pans out. I wonder whether there is any chance that he will come to his senses and renegotiate (I think that depends on what the mood of yesterday's meeting with Robbo was like). It could very well be an untenable situation for both parties, meaning there might be no way back. Other clubs will want to carefully think about him - if he is not happy at a club like ours, that have managed him well, what are they going to be able to do with him.

It looks like Zane will also be leaving, as he did not show up in our 2020 squad. I presume that he will be the next player to keep an eye on. Perhaps the Dogs.
 

S J

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 2, 2013
21,434
1,958
113
106
Time Traveller
Apparently the Chooks are sniffing about - they are the only ones with space under the cap ... ;)
 

The_Fanatical_Rooster

Junior Member
Oct 12, 2019
29
7
3
Sydney north
Not biting guys, sorry!

It is quite a circus, and has provided some entertainment this week. I do hope, though, that it gets resolved sooner rather than later, as I do get concerned about Latrell's mental well being during all of this. I am not convinced that he has the best people around him to be honest (I am not talking about his family, but a certain ex player who also boxed here and there). I still think that, on balance, he is likely to head to Souths. They have acted in a strange way this week.

On another matter, I am confused as to what is happening with Zane. He is not in our 2020 squad, but the club has remained very quiet around his situation. I am not sure what to make of it. I presumed that he is going to the Bulldogs, but this seems uncertain. Perhaps they are waiting for the test matches to finish.
 
  • Like
Reactions: S J

S J

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 2, 2013
21,434
1,958
113
106
Time Traveller
Not biting guys, sorry!

It is quite a circus, and has provided some entertainment this week. I do hope, though, that it gets resolved sooner rather than later, as I do get concerned about Latrell's mental well being during all of this. I am not convinced that he has the best people around him to be honest (I am not talking about his family, but a certain ex player who also boxed here and there). I still think that, on balance, he is likely to head to Souths. They have acted in a strange way this week.

On another matter, I am confused as to what is happening with Zane. He is not in our 2020 squad, but the club has remained very quiet around his situation. I am not sure what to make of it. I presumed that he is going to the Bulldogs, but this seems uncertain. Perhaps they are waiting for the test matches to finish.
Talk about the silly season. Maybe we do need a draft.
 

The_Fanatical_Rooster

Junior Member
Oct 12, 2019
29
7
3
Sydney north
Out of interest, how come RR?

I am not sure whether an internal or external draft is necessarily the answer, but I am sure that something needs to change. I think most club supporters would agree with that. This business of players signing for X season onwards with another club, then playing X - 1 with their current club, like Latrell might do with us next season, is not right and should be avoided. I believe players should only be allowed to negotiate with clubs from the day after the grand final in relation to the following season onwards, and not beyond that. So, Latrell would not have been allowed to deal with anyone until the day after the 2020 GF. Set the date then or, say, 15 October, a week after. That is enough time to leave a club and get set up elsewhere. I do not buy the insufficient time argument.

I seriously hope that this issue gets looked at as soon as possible, quite frankly.
 

RADICAL RABBIT

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2018
8,980
2,034
113
I am sure that something needs to change. I think most club supporters would agree with that. This business of players signing for X season onwards with another club, then playing X - 1 with their current club, like Latrell might do with us next season, is not right and should be avoided. I believe players should only be allowed to negotiate with clubs from the day after the grand final in relation to the following season onwards, and not beyond that. So, Latrell would not have been allowed to deal with anyone until the day after the 2020 GF. Set the date then or, say, 15 October, a week after. That is enough time to leave a club and get set up elsewhere. I do not buy the insufficient time argument.
That doesn't mean there has to be a draft.
 

S J

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 2, 2013
21,434
1,958
113
106
Time Traveller
Out of interest, how come RR?

I am not sure whether an internal or external draft is necessarily the answer, but I am sure that something needs to change. I think most club supporters would agree with that. This business of players signing for X season onwards with another club, then playing X - 1 with their current club, like Latrell might do with us next season, is not right and should be avoided. I believe players should only be allowed to negotiate with clubs from the day after the grand final in relation to the following season onwards, and not beyond that. So, Latrell would not have been allowed to deal with anyone until the day after the 2020 GF. Set the date then or, say, 15 October, a week after. That is enough time to leave a club and get set up elsewhere. I do not buy the insufficient time argument.

I seriously hope that this issue gets looked at as soon as possible, quite frankly.
Agree FanRo. I think the Radical one needs to look at this a bit closer.
 

RADICAL RABBIT

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2018
8,980
2,034
113
Okay, fair enough, so what would you suggest, then?
What you suggested sounds okay to me:

This business of players signing for X season onwards with another club, then playing X - 1 with their current club, like Latrell might do with us next season, is not right and should be avoided. I believe players should only be allowed to negotiate with clubs from the day after the grand final in relation to the following season onwards, and not beyond that. So, Latrell would not have been allowed to deal with anyone until the day after the 2020 GF. Set the date then or, say, 15 October, a week after. That is enough time to leave a club and get set up elsewhere. I do not buy the insufficient time argument.
But the new contract can be for longer than 1 season.
 

The_Fanatical_Rooster

Junior Member
Oct 12, 2019
29
7
3
Sydney north
What you suggested sounds okay to me:



But the new contract can be for longer than 1 season.
Absolutely. It can be for 10 years if a club wants (although I think that would be ridiculous). My idea focuses on the year of commencement having to be the following season onwards. Therefore, Latrell could not begin negotiations for a contract for 2021 onwards until, say, 15 October 2020. You avoid this problem of a player staying at a club and losing interest as they will be focusing on their new club - it is human nature to do that. I can understand that, but the current situation needs to be corrected, and quickly.
 

S J

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 2, 2013
21,434
1,958
113
106
Time Traveller
I'm a bit wary of long - and/or - back-ended contracts. Especially in view of the Burgess/GI cases.

You offer someone $10m over 10 years - knowing you'll medically retire them after 4 or 5. It happens in the MLB. Yankees offer a fortune to a player - and you know he won't see it out. They know they'll get the rest at "retirement". Virtually a thankyou payment of - say - $4m when they go. Rich Clubs with rich backers could use it quite easily.
 

RADICAL RABBIT

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2018
8,980
2,034
113
Absolutely. It can be for 10 years if a club wants (although I think that would be ridiculous). My idea focuses on the year of commencement having to be the following season onwards. Therefore, Latrell could not begin negotiations for a contract for 2021 onwards until, say, 15 October 2020. You avoid this problem of a player staying at a club and losing interest as they will be focusing on their new club - it is human nature to do that. I can understand that, but the current situation needs to be corrected, and quickly.
Makes sense to me.
 

RADICAL RABBIT

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2018
8,980
2,034
113
I'm a bit wary of long - and/or - back-ended contracts. Especially in view of the Burgess/GI cases.

You offer someone $10m over 10 years - knowing you'll medically retire them after 4 or 5. It happens in the MLB. Yankees offer a fortune to a player - and you know he won't see it out. They know they'll get the rest at "retirement". Virtually a thankyou payment of - say - $4m when they go. Rich Clubs with rich backers could use it quite easily.
Yeah I understand that. What do you think the solution is?
 

The_Fanatical_Rooster

Junior Member
Oct 12, 2019
29
7
3
Sydney north
I'm a bit wary of long - and/or - back-ended contracts. Especially in view of the Burgess/GI cases.

You offer someone $10m over 10 years - knowing you'll medically retire them after 4 or 5. It happens in the MLB. Yankees offer a fortune to a player - and you know he won't see it out. They know they'll get the rest at "retirement". Virtually a thankyou payment of - say - $4m when they go. Rich Clubs with rich backers could use it quite easily.
A couple of issues here. I am wary too, but I am not necessarily of the belief that you can stop clubs from doing it. They will 'hang themselves' if they are that stupid. The NRL should come out and state something like: 'if you do that, we will not rescue you. You will go bankrupt or we will take your license, and either relocate you or go to one of the interested consortiums and arrange for a new team to enter the competition'.

The second issue is around medical retirement. I am not sure what the answer is here. It is almost like the NRL needs to arrange for a medical assessment to be undertaken before one of these contracts is executed (i.e. one longer than a certain stipulated period). Perhaps there needs to be a clause in such contracts that states that the NRL is entitled to carry out a full medical assessment of the player in particular circumstances. I am not a lawyer (yet), so I don't know if that could be feasible, or whether it would have pitfalls, or be open to wrongful interpretation or manipulation. I am just thinking out loud here.