yep..............so obviously the club would have a replacement lined up wouldnt they? Wouldnt they?
I think they wanted Brooks at a better price. They didn't want to be paying top dollar simply because there weren't many alternatives available.
Yep, and the alternative is Wakeham.
Im all for letting Brooks go, but not without a better replacement. As it stands we could have retained Brooks for an extra $100K. If we end up with aiden Sezer or Wakeham in the halves next year, for the sake of $100K, then that is an indictment on the club.
yep..............so obviously the club would have a replacement lined up wouldnt they? Wouldnt they?
I think they wanted Brooks at a better price. They didn't want to be paying top dollar simply because there weren't many alternatives available.
Yep, and the alternative is Wakeham.
Im all for letting Brooks go, but not without a better replacement. As it stands we could have retained Brooks for an extra $100K. If we end up with aiden Sezer or Wakeham in the halves next year, for the sake of $100K, then that is an indictment on the club.
When we talk Wests Tigers recruitment I still think back to Pascoe outlining why Michael Gordon was a good replacement option for James Tedesco.
We’re still there.
Wests Tigers Podcast - Talking everything Wests Tigers!
They were obviously playing a bit of hardball with Brooks and his agent played the game better given he has control over the Manly roster. That said, Manly were forced into paying Schuster a lot of money as an unproven back rower so I wouldn’t say they had it all their way.
If it’s sezer then it will be interesting to see this team managed by a mature genuine 7 (it’s been over a decade since we have seen one of those in our colours) and it gives an opportunity to bring through a promising 6 whilst we sift through the options around who our next 7 will be (similar to what the raiders are doing now). It’s not the perfect option (Mitch Moses would have brought short term success) but I think it might be better than what we have seen over the past few years
@tiger5150 I think its too early to come to that conclusion.
We have not signed any halves and on the surface that does not look great but 2024 pre-season is still a while away.
I don't buy the narrative about a shortage of halves on the market. The Warriors have 5 contracted halves for 2024 as it stands.
There's no certainty that Sezer signs and there's every chance he could be signed to replace Wakeham rather than Brooks.
It's in our interest to avoid rushing to sign halves now. Player managers know we are desperate. Just see what happens in coming months. There's going to be a heap of movement.
“We had a board meeting on (Monday) night and one of our directors passed a motion of confidence in me that was unanimously passed.
“That was humbling and I was overwhelmed by that.
“Internally, we know we have made a lot of positive changes (and) there is the core of a very good team there.
“We are not far away.”
the board have all held hands and jumped off the cliff together. Every major decision (sheens, Maguire, Benji, Fulton, brooks) has been signed off by the board. They are not a board of oversight they are amateurs playing fantasy football. Of course they are going to vote confidence in themselves. This is the governance rot that is the centre of our issues.
If i heard that interview right the motion was passed by Tony Andreacchio the suburban real estate agent who has been on the board since 2012.
If you do get the meeting with Simon Cook can you ask him:
- if there is any chance Tony gives someone else a go or do we have to wait for him to die?
- to provide any insight into any ability for anyone outside of Wests Ashfield / Holman Barnes Group to either a) infiltrate the board or b) apply directly to the NRL to take over the license?
I suspect the answer to both questions is no but Simon would be the best person to confirm one way or the other.
@tiger5150 I think its too early to come to that conclusion.
Possibly, but also too late to retain Brooks which is the whole point. If we end up with a replacement that is not clearly superior to Brooks, this is a massive problem and an idictment on the club and IMO should be the end of Pascoe / Lee / (anyone involved in this decision) if this is the result
There's no certainty that Sezer signs and there's every chance he could be signed to replace Wakeham rather than Brooks.
An NRL club with any aspirations to semi final football can not have Sezer or Wakeham in first grade.
It's in our interest to avoid rushing to sign halves now. Player managers know we are desperate. Just see what happens in coming months. There's going to be a heap of movement.
Im sure there will be movement, for example Raiders just signed Sanders. Have you seen anything that gives confidence that we can attract players to the club?
yep..............so obviously the club would have a replacement lined up wouldnt they? Wouldnt they?
I think they wanted Brooks at a better price. They didn't want to be paying top dollar simply because there weren't many alternatives available.
Yep, and the alternative is Wakeham.
Im all for letting Brooks go, but not without a better replacement. As it stands we could have retained Brooks for an extra $100K. If we end up with aiden Sezer or Wakeham in the halves next year, for the sake of $100K, then that is an indictment on the club.
You know that for a fact, another $100K and Brooks stays? How do you know this?
I would normally agree with your comment and I have used that argument in the past regarding Brooks, but after 10 years, sometimes you have also to accept that keeping Brooks is not necessarily the best move, even if there is no clear-cut replacement available. Keeping Brooks is associated with continued failure. Brooks has rarely played consistently at a top level, though Tigers are compelled to pay him top-level salary.
You know the fans have had enough when some poor demented souls advocate moving to Perth or handing the licence back or going private and I suspect Simon Cook is as pissed off as all of us, but is hopefully doing things behind the scenes that none of us are aware of.
If a meeting goes ahead, there needs to be a genuine acknowledgement that this farce cannot continue and change must occur, not for change sake but for a seismic shift in the 'intellectual capacity" of the WT Board. As iv'e said before we all need to join Wests Leagues Club so as there is a serious Block of Votes that current Directors and or Debenture Holders will want to stay on side with. This is the key for change.
The Almighty Frog
If a meeting goes ahead, there needs to be a genuine acknowledgement that this farce cannot continue and change must occur, not for change sake but for a seismic shift in the 'intellectual capacity" of the WT Board.
These are understandable sentiments, Im sure shared widely. For mine the strength of the petition is that it doesnt make demands or presume outcomes but instead a subjective, independent review.
yep..............so obviously the club would have a replacement lined up wouldnt they? Wouldnt they?
I think they wanted Brooks at a better price. They didn't want to be paying top dollar simply because there weren't many alternatives available.
Yep, and the alternative is Wakeham.
Im all for letting Brooks go, but not without a better replacement. As it stands we could have retained Brooks for an extra $100K. If we end up with aiden Sezer or Wakeham in the halves next year, for the sake of $100K, then that is an indictment on the club.
You know that for a fact, another $100K and Brooks stays? How do you know this?
I would normally agree with your comment and I have used that argument in the past regarding Brooks, but after 10 years, sometimes you have also to accept that keeping Brooks is not necessarily the best move, even if there is no clear-cut replacement available. Keeping Brooks is associated with continued failure. Brooks has rarely played consistently at a top level, though Tigers are compelled to pay him top-level salary.
Those pictures do not address my argument, that after 10 years it may be a reasonable argument to not over-pay for Brooks. Sometimes you have to cut dead wood before you recruit new blood. You also did not address your claim that another hundred thousand keeps Brooks at the club.
But with the recent news of Latu Fainu reported to be signing, and Tigers history of making significant recruitment decisions in the early off-season, maybe you should park these two pictures and see what the "Plan B" actually looks like for 2024.
If a meeting goes ahead, there needs to be a genuine acknowledgement that this farce cannot continue and change must occur, not for change sake but for a seismic shift in the 'intellectual capacity" of the WT Board.
These are understandable sentiments, Im sure shared widely. For mine the strength of the petition is that it doesnt make demands or presume outcomes but instead a subjective, independent review.
I agree, I think some people are widely over-reaching what will be possible in (a) meeting with Holman Barnes, and (b) getting traction with the aims of the petition.
You'd be happy enough, surely, if they agreed to an independent review, without demanding specific fan-initiated outcomes.
You go into a meeting with Simon Cook using language like "farce" and "change must occur" and he will politely tell you to go away.
Those pictures do not address my argument, that after 10 years it may be a reasonable argument to not over-pay for Brooks. Sometimes you have to cut dead wood before you recruit new blood. You also did not address your claim that another hundred thousand keeps Brooks at the club.
But with the recent news of Latu Fainu reported to be signing, and Tigers history of making significant recruitment decisions in the early off-season, maybe you should park these two pictures and see what the "Plan B" actually looks like for 2024.
your post, your argument is literally a response to my post saying, specifically "that If we end up with aiden Sezer or Wakeham in the halves next year, for the sake of $100K, then that is an indictment on the club".
Those photos correctly address the argument totally. I literally say in my post that I agree with getting rid of Brooks if we get a superior replacement. Your argument literally says even if there is no clear cut replacement available. If there are no replacements available, we end up with Wakeham/Smith/Sezer and that IS an indictment on the club.
IF we come up with superior replacements, then that is a good result. That is what the word IF means.
Agree. All that is needed is an expert external review. I would be absolutely dumbfounded if said review came back and said Wests Tigers were following best practices for governance, structure and processes.If a meeting goes ahead, there needs to be a genuine acknowledgement that this farce cannot continue and change must occur, not for change sake but for a seismic shift in the 'intellectual capacity" of the WT Board.
These are understandable sentiments, Im sure shared widely. For mine the strength of the petition is that it doesnt make demands or presume outcomes but instead a subjective, independent review.
I agree, I think some people are widely over-reaching what will be possible in (a) meeting with Holman Barnes, and (b) getting traction with the aims of the petition.
You'd be happy enough, surely, if they agreed to an independent review, without demanding specific fan-initiated outcomes.
You go into a meeting with Simon Cook using language like "farce" and "change must occur" and he will politely tell you to go away.
We all may have differing opinions on what the structure of Wests Tigers board & club should look like. I don’t know what is currently broken, all I know is that it is broken. I’ll leave it up to the external reviewers to make recommendations.
