Err I raised player payments in relation to MBs suggestions. Why are you raising completely irrelevant points?Scollop wrote:I was of the view that GT helped create the foundations for success and the blueprint for a team culture including the loyalty of the list (who included most of the leaders within the core playing group). I believe that RL was the main reason the loyalty dissolved.saintsRrising wrote:Sorry but 2. and 3. is how GT f****** up a tilt at a flag or two. We paid too much too our young emerging stars, and players like Ball gave us no loyalty once the largess for being overpaid for results delivered finished.meher baba wrote:
Even if we could (surely unlikely), we shouldn't IMO. Our priorities, in order, should be.
1. Sign a genuine star (Kelly is the best option I reckon).
2. Throw some of our extra $$$ at our existing list, rewarding those who've come on really well.
3. If there's any left over, grab some good established talent to fill gaps.
Without the loyalty and belief created by GT the team wouldn't have got that close under RL imo, but it's all hypothetical. I reckon GT would have got the job done if he was given a chance. But history will say he failed as did RL. Only difference is that GT wasn't given the opportunity to see the fruits of the maturity of the group. RL had the core group in their prime.
If you want to be like a politician and blame GT because RL failed as a coach that's your business.
Perhaps only debate the point I raised and not the pre-history where you and I actually agree on (Though note that the early work was done by a group including GT, RB, MK, BW and others and not GT alone).
RL is completely irrelevant to the matter of player contract management. GT managed player contracts. MB, TW, RL, SW and AR did/do not.
YES GT did things initially correctly and well. That is without dispute. But if you also do not understand that he also hamstrung our finals chance with his list MIS-management re players contracts/ payments , then you are in complete denial.