2017 Brisbane Broncos Thread - we hate them for their freedom

I like that idea, Roberts is beyond help, but for others it could be life changing. They would need to give the player in question a goal though. For example, you can't play till next season but you still train with the squad.

flasSId* wrote:I like that idea, Roberts is beyond help, but for others it could be life changing.  They would need to give the player in question a goal though.  For example, you can't play till next season but you still train with the squad.

And in this particular case I like the idea of having James Roberts for a nominal salary. I wouldn't have liked it so much if the Raiders were able to keep Dugan for a nominal wage, or the Sharks/Roosters/Raiders keep Carney for a nominal wage etc. Personally I don't think the players would do it anyway. They'd do a Carney and play in the ESL.

If you're terminated from your contract the NRL should see why and whether they're going to impose a ban straight away. Say Broncos drop him now, the NRL step in and say he's got 12 games suspension. Any club that wants to take him must present a way to rehabilitate him before they can sign him.

Honeysett wrote:If you're terminated from your contract the NRL should see why and whether they're going to impose a ban straight away. Say Broncos drop him now, the NRL step in and say he's got 12 games suspension. Any club that wants to take him must present a way to rehabilitate him before they can sign him.

This approach only solves the problem of another club benefitting from a sacking - it does nothing to help the player, nor does it place any responsibility on the club that employed the player in the first place.

@Dip; my thoughts are that club is getting the use of that player for a nominal wage during that period (hence why it shouldn't be included in the cap).
And yes, the player may well up and leave to go play ESL but they do have a choice to sort their shit out or not.

Dip wrote:Also (and I'm not saying that depth should dictate your moral compass), it would be easier for the Broncos to stomach sacking him when they have Mead, Oates, Pearson, Moga, Opacic and Kahu to choose from in the three quarter line, while also having some free cash in case a mid season option comes up.

I could quite happily accept a full strength backline of Boyd, Oates, Opacic/Moga, Kahu, Mead, Milford and Hunt. Obviously it's stronger with Roberts there, but you have enough points with the 1, 6 & 7 without needing a game breaker in the centres as well.

If signing Roberts made the Bronco's salary cap position better, would sacking him make it worse?

lolz

Oz Sport Mad wrote:Normally and for most other players/blokes I'd say this is potentially a deadset non-event.

But the bloke obviously felt he had an issue with his drinking (or other performance enhancers), enough so to check in to rehab; and I would have therefore thought being out on the piss after the Millions is not a planned part of his recovery program.

As Dip said, it wouldn't be the end of the world if we had to let him go but personally I always think that is such a cop out for clubs and doesn't help the player involved one iota.

I would prefer he is removed from the top 25 roster (for salary cap purposes) but kept on the books for the club to try ad help him sort his shit out.
I would actually like the NRL to enforce some sort of rule around that, so that clubs can't just sack a bloke and conveniently move on.

or this is just to please the media
if he was actually deadset on rehab and getting away from grog there is no fucking way he goes to the races and gets on it and goes out and gets on it.

The bloke is an absolute mess and if the bronco's had any integrity they would cut him from the side, pay for his 21 day rehab program (again?), then fuck him off.

Pieman wrote:

If signing Roberts made the Bronco's salary cap position better, would sacking him make it worse?

lolz

Well since it's pretty much inconceivable that Roberts would have been on as much coin as Hodges, I imagine the Broncos were in a better salary cap position when he was signed. If we fire him and we no longer have Hodges or Roberts, then common sense says it improves again.

was a joke dippy...


buttt
he wasnt a direct replacement for hodges was he. He was not signed to replace hodges.
he was a bloke that the club signed after the titans fucked up, after the pre season last year, after the cap had been outlined for the year at least etc etc.

They let go of copley to get him, not hodges.

Pieman wrote:was a joke dippy...


buttt
he wasnt a direct replacement for hodges was he. He was not signed to replace hodges.
he was a bloke that the club signed after the titans fucked up, after the pre season last year, after the cap had been outlined for the year at least etc etc.

They let go of copley to get him, not hodges.

Don't argue with Broncos revisionist history.

The NRL should have been harsher last year when everyone was calling for a decent ban for a repeat repeat offender, they let the Broncos dictate to them again and now both organisations are in a spot of bother about what to do.

4 big issues for the NRL to deal with, Papa Mullen Foran and Roberts, all should get decent bans, 8 weeks(any DD offence should really be alot more considering how stupidly dangerous it is but that wont happen), 4 years, 12 months from date left Eels, 8 weeks

Rather then a nominal salary blah blah, anyone who signs a player sacked for breach of contract or disicpline reasons by another should be told that if the player has a similar breach or breaches their contract money stays on the salary cap for the entire length no matter what. This will make clubs think twice about constantly re-signing players and then cutting them lose at no cost to themselves

My understanding of why getting Roberts improved our cap position was that we were paying Copley more than we signed Roberts for, obviously turfing Roberts would improve our cap further, but we wouldn't have a dally m winning centre to show for it this time

surmo13 wrote:My understanding of why getting Roberts improved our cap position was that we were paying Copley more than we signed Roberts for, obviously turfing Roberts would improve our cap further, but we wouldn't have a dally m winning centre to show for it this time

It wont be long until you actually make a profit from the cap and end up with more money than the NRL allocate.

No Worries wrote:

surmo13 wrote:My understanding of why getting Roberts improved our cap position was that we were paying Copley more than we signed Roberts for, obviously turfing Roberts would improve our cap further, but we wouldn't have a dally m winning centre to show for it this time

It wont be long until you actually make a profit from the cap and end up with more money than the NRL allocate.

I thought we already were making a profit on our cap? Plus I doubt our second set of funds that the NRL allocates to us is barely even half used.

Maybe the Broncos can sign another Tigers player in Tim Simona.

Bren wrote:Maybe the Broncos can sign another Tigers player in Tim Simona.

Don't tease me like that...

Bren wrote:Maybe the Broncos can sign another Tigers player in Tim Simona.

World class international centre.

He fits the brief

surmo13 wrote:My understanding of why getting Roberts improved our cap position was that we were paying Copley more than we signed Roberts for, obviously turfing Roberts would improve our cap further, but we wouldn't have a dally m winning centre to show for it this time

My understanding was that eg (these figures are just for the argument):
Copley was on 250k, all of it on the cap - because well, who wants to use dale copley for their advertising
They cut copley, and sign james roberts for 400k, 200k on the cap and 200k in TPA, saving $50k on the cap.

Obviously those figures are just made up - but to me, that is the only way they could save money by signing james roberts - who is clearly a better player than copley and who was coming off dally m centre of the year as well.

Looking for TPA's for Roberts must have been fun. The face of ...................

No Worries wrote:Looking for TPA's for Roberts must have been fun. The face of ...................

Duck toilet cleaner.

Well when they signed him and it looked like he had overcome his issues, and is an indigenous superstar, coming off an excellent season where he won centre of the year - it wouldnt have been that hard.

Considering someone like alex glenn gets them, it wouldnt have been hard at all for Roberts to get some.

Its not like they (or anyone) do it the way it was designed, and the manager or player organises them then tells the club. The clubs tells the player "we can give you x amount guaranteed cap money and x in TPA if you come".