Hartley, CC and FJ are on record as stating that they're taking a 3 and 4 year view of recruiting and list replenishment along with salary management. I see White's retention purely as a part of that. Line up 3 or 4 very easy delistings at the end of 2013 and 2014.
Funny how list manager's at 3 other clubs in a lengthy article in The Age subscribe to the same managed, 3 and 4 year approach. Including the Collingwood and Swans list managers. So the RFC is just managing to what many would subscribe as best practice.
Easy when you're not managing all the pieces. The salary cap and the CBA it's imposition of set salaries for year 1 and 2 player's creates a fair bit of headache for the club. Many moaning about Luke's salary for the past 3 years. Few would if they took the time to do the maths.
The CBA terms and the desire to keep structured salaries does impact your ability to move too much of the list, when that list is young. We're in that bind now.
so what are they saying. i take it when we recruit a player it will be with the view we will look at them and keep them for 3 or 4 yrs. how this affects making it easy to delist players is beyond me.
most kids take between 2 and 4 yrs and talls even longer sometimes. depending on where you take a kid i would have thought planning your contracts around 3 or 4 yr terms the logical thing to do. i still dont see what that has to do with keeping players who add nothing to your list.
we have a 10 or more not including rookies who we should be seriously looking at cutting. most have been there more than 3 yrs.
atm if we are looking at cutting just 3 or 4 players each yr with the holes we have in the list then we will never get anywhere.
how does keeping white help us in this 3 or 4 yr approach hes had 7. how does he affect our salary cap are you saying we could not bring in a mature player like moloney as a f/a to help us get to 92%.
at 29 would not moloney with a two yr contract fall into that easy delisting category for 2013 2014.
and once again just because cc hartley and jackson say something does it mean they actually are right or what they say is written in stone and is totally inflexable.
there is absolutely no valid reason to keep players like white. weather thats contractually or the ability to delist players in yr or two time. or the role he plays depth skills performance he ticks none of them. in cutting him it does not create a list problem or a contractual problem sheesh they couldnt give him away no one wanted him yet we give him another yr. surely jackson and cameron has seen enough of him after all both have been there almost his entire career.
it is a valid question do these two even look at overall performances, the skill set of each player on our list, and the need for them in terms of the role they do with other options on the list. in whites case the answer to this must be clearly not.
i have to ask you do you think it at possible that every now and then they get things wrong. seems not the way every single thing they do is defended.
