Raiders player signing speculation 2019

[Beejay]

I called this during the World Cup, DWZ did way too well to be relegated to the wing in clubland and Edwards is a fullback not a winger. They also have a strongly rated junior behind them. Plumb position for a Gould removal deal.

It's a bit of a toss up between Dufty and Edwards for me, but the one thing I think i've noticed between the two, is that Edwards is much busier in support play. Dufty has been accused of being a bit lazy, but I definately won't throw that Edwards way. He pops up everywhere following the ball. I might be old fashioned as far as the current fullback play goes, but I much much prefer that over a ball player who doesn't.

[Coastalraider]

Dylan Edwards at fullback would be a win. I just have doubts about Jack at 6 - he has the ball skills, as we saw last year (finally stopped throwing cut outs to row 9) but his kicking game is atrocious, and his game smarts are seriously lacking.

I too am dubious of whether he is up to it. However, his pass selection last yr was very good.

Weirdly, I think this might actually help with your next problem.

Will strengthen us defensively, but I can’t help to think that his shortfalls will place excess pressure on Sezer, which he has not handled well in the past.

You might remember Sezer and Austin going to Ricky before our run about getting more ball and more influence; you know, the whole too many chieftains not enough indians bit. They did it last yr too. Well, i suspect Wighton doesnt have the same ego or confidence that Austin had, and as such, Hodgo and Sezer will be running the show. I think this actually works out better in this regard.

Im hoping this would also lead to a more traditional 1st and 2nd receiver situation, with both halves going to both sidesof the field. However, i can see Wighton being parked on the left edge exclusively, where he had most of his success at FB.

I remember Jacks pass selection was exceptional in 1 or 2 set plays. Exceptional. But he would have to do more at 6. I’m not saying he can’t do it, but I have seen enough to be hesitant. I also remember in the last 2 years when Austin was out through injury or what have you, that I thought it was Sezers chance to own the team without the noise of Austin calling balls he had no right to call, and for Sezer to be the sole
Leading half. But I remember Sezer continued to go missing more often than not.

I think finding a fullback, and shifting jack to 6 is our ‘best’ option given the circumstances, just not sure it’s a great option.

[Matt]

Dylan Edwards at fullback would be a win. I just have doubts about Jack at 6 - he has the ball skills, as we saw last year (finally stopped throwing cut outs to row 9) but his kicking game is atrocious, and his game smarts are seriously lacking.

I too am dubious of whether he is up to it. However, his pass selection last yr was very good.

Weirdly, I think this might actually help with your next problem.

Will strengthen us defensively, but I can’t help to think that his shortfalls will place excess pressure on Sezer, which he has not handled well in the past.

You might remember Sezer and Austin going to Ricky before our run about getting more ball and more influence; you know, the whole too many chieftains not enough indians bit. They did it last yr too. Well, i suspect Wighton doesnt have the same ego or confidence that Austin had, and as such, Hodgo and Sezer will be running the show. I think this actually works out better in this regard.

Im hoping this would also lead to a more traditional 1st and 2nd receiver situation, with both halves going to both sidesof the field. However, i can see Wighton being parked on the left edge exclusively, where he had most of his success at FB.

I remember Jacks pass selection was exceptional in 1 or 2 set plays. Exceptional. But he would have to do more at 6. I’m not saying he can’t do it, but I have seen enough to be hesitant. I also remember in the last 2 years when Austin was out through injury or what have you, that I thought it was Sezers chance to own the team without the noise of Austin calling balls he had no right to call, and for Sezer to be the sole
Leading half. But I remember Sezer continued to go missing more often than not.

I think finding a fullback, and shifting jack to 6 is our ‘best’ option given the circumstances, just not sure it’s a great option.

Who stepped onto Austins shoes though? Sammy. A play calling halfback. He wants the ball too. So, it may have actually been equally hard, if not harder on Sezer. 2 play calling halves doesnt work, just like two 5/8s. The problem here is, neither stepped up.

The couple of times Sezer has had Whitehead or Hingano start along side him, and the couple of times he was the only half standing due to Austin or Sammy going down mid game, i think he has been better. Yes, super small sample size, like a half dozen games in 2-3yrs, but worth relooking at if anyone can figure that out.

I too feel a good FB like Edwards, or a good winger, like Greg Jennings, with Cotric at FB, and you know how i feel about this move, so that Jack goes to 6 is safer/ better than Jack at FB and Sammy at 6.

Im still not convinced that Sammy/ Sezer partnership wont work, but we have enough loses with this other combo to at least try something else.

[Ruben Daley]

I agree with Matt that the balance seems better on paper with Jack in the halves (if we can get an Edwards-level fullback) because we have one less organiser. Jack should be just told to play what's in front of him, as he's been doing very well from fullback. That means Hodgo and Sezer do the organising, giving them one less person to have to share it with and potentially improving Sezer's game.

Jack's attack may end up being an upgrade on both Austin and Williams simply because of the fit.

So, if the team's attack as a whole is similar or not much worse than 2018 then it's just a comparison of defence, which is a landslide victory in the favour of Jack.

[Neeeegz]

Is Edwards listed as a winger ? Because I doubt the NRL will let us sign a fullback 5/8 with the money we get for rapana ?

Sent from my SM-J530Y using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[Ruben Daley]

Is Edwards listed as a winger ? Because I doubt the NRL will let us sign a fullback 5/8 with the money we get for rapana ?

Sent from my SM-J530Y using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Don has been making sure to refer to Rapa as a fullback for this very reason:

"It's got to be positional, like for like - 'This guy plays fullback/winger and Rapana plays fullback/winger, is that OK?'”

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.smh ... 50nz1.html

[edwahu]

Is Edwards listed as a winger ? Because I doubt the NRL will let us sign a fullback 5/8 with the money we get for rapana ?

Sent from my SM-J530Y using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

I'm not even sure you can use more than the extra money to sign a replacement. It's not clear how it works.

I would think Edwards probably gets knocked back if we try it. It's not really the intention of the clause to get you over the line in signing a much more expensive player.

[TongueFTW]

Edwards is a really good prospect, the best of the ones mentioned. He is still really young so will develop a passing game and more strings to his bow. He is quick, breaks a surprising number of tackles for someone his size and is extremely safe under the high ball.

[greeneyed]

Is Edwards listed as a winger ? Because I doubt the NRL will let us sign a fullback 5/8 with the money we get for rapana ?

Sent from my SM-J530Y using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

I'm not even sure you can use more than the extra money to sign a replacement. It's not clear how it works.

I would think Edwards probably gets knocked back if we try it. It's not really the intention of the clause to get you over the line in signing a much more expensive player.

But why should it matter to the NRL or any other club? The Raiders have lost $x due to a player sitting on the sidelines for eight months due to an injury in rep football. The relief isn't $x, it is something less... and it should be $x ie precisely eight months of that player's salary. Regardless, why should it matter to the NRL how the dollars are used? The club should be free to use those cap dollars like any other cap dollar. The clubs are in the best position to judge what they need in their squad, taking into account the unavailable player.

[Sid]

Is Edwards listed as a winger ? Because I doubt the NRL will let us sign a fullback 5/8 with the money we get for rapana ?

Sent from my SM-J530Y using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

I'm not even sure you can use more than the extra money to sign a replacement. It's not clear how it works.

I would think Edwards probably gets knocked back if we try it. It's not really the intention of the clause to get you over the line in signing a much more expensive player.

Yeah, from what I understand in one of GE's posts in another thread stating the rules of this, Raiders can't put their own money on top of the Rapana relief money. So if it's say 170K relief money, Raiders have to find an available Winger/Fullback that will play for a capped amount of 170K.. Can't just throw an extra 400K on top of it to purchase someone like Edwards. Makes it difficult because best available player that fits all the requirements might only be worth 110K, while missing out on another player that would fit all other requirements but turn down the offer because they're already worth 190K.

The relief money is better than nothing as it will provide a depth player if the likes of Oldfield, Cotric, Croker, Leilua get injured, but it's very restrictive on how it can be used.

I suspect the player Raiders will be able to purchase with the relief fund would be more of a cover for Oldfield, now that he'd be moving up to the starting position, rather than a cover for Rapana.

[greeneyed]

Is Edwards listed as a winger ? Because I doubt the NRL will let us sign a fullback 5/8 with the money we get for rapana ?

Sent from my SM-J530Y using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

I'm not even sure you can use more than the extra money to sign a replacement. It's not clear how it works.

I would think Edwards probably gets knocked back if we try it. It's not really the intention of the clause to get you over the line in signing a much more expensive player.

Yeah, from what I understand in one of GE's posts in another thread stating the rules of this, Raiders can't put their own money on top of the Rapana relief money. So if it's say 170K relief money, Raiders have to find an available Winger/Fullback that will play for a capped amount of 170K.. Can't just throw an extra 400K on top of it to purchase someone like Edwards. Makes it difficult because best available player that fits all the requirements might only be worth 110K, while missing out on another player that would fit all other requirements but turn down the offer because they're already worth 190K.

The relief money is better than nothing as it will provide a depth player if the likes of Oldfield, Cotric, Croker, Leilua get injured, but it's very restrictive on how it can be used.

I suspect the player Raiders will be able to purchase with the relief fund would be more of a cover for Oldfield, now that he'd be moving up to the starting position, rather than a cover for Rapana.

I'm sure that that bit is right. But I can't find a clear description from the NRL on how the rule works. NRL transparency at its best.

[Sid]

Is Edwards listed as a winger ? Because I doubt the NRL will let us sign a fullback 5/8 with the money we get for rapana ?

Sent from my SM-J530Y using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

I'm not even sure you can use more than the extra money to sign a replacement. It's not clear how it works.

I would think Edwards probably gets knocked back if we try it. It's not really the intention of the clause to get you over the line in signing a much more expensive player.

Yeah, from what I understand in one of GE's posts in another thread stating the rules of this, Raiders can't put their own money on top of the Rapana relief money. So if it's say 170K relief money, Raiders have to find an available Winger/Fullback that will play for a capped amount of 170K.. Can't just throw an extra 400K on top of it to purchase someone like Edwards. Makes it difficult because best available player that fits all the requirements might only be worth 110K, while missing out on another player that would fit all other requirements but turn down the offer because they're already worth 190K.

The relief money is better than nothing as it will provide a depth player if the likes of Oldfield, Cotric, Croker, Leilua get injured, but it's very restrictive on how it can be used.

I suspect the player Raiders will be able to purchase with the relief fund would be more of a cover for Oldfield, now that he'd be moving up to the starting position, rather than a cover for Rapana.

I'm sure that that bit is right. But I can't find a clear description from the NRL on how the rule works. NRL transparency at its best.

This would be the perfect scenario to revive the #AskBen thread

[edwahu]

Is Edwards listed as a winger ? Because I doubt the NRL will let us sign a fullback 5/8 with the money we get for rapana ?

Sent from my SM-J530Y using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

I'm not even sure you can use more than the extra money to sign a replacement. It's not clear how it works.

I would think Edwards probably gets knocked back if we try it. It's not really the intention of the clause to get you over the line in signing a much more expensive player.

But why should it matter to the NRL or any other club? The Raiders have lost $x due to a player sitting on the sidelines for eight months due to an injury in rep football. The relief isn't $x, it is something less... and it should be $x ie precisely eight months of that player's salary. Regardless, why should it matter to the NRL how the dollars are used? The club should be free to use those cap dollars like any other cap dollar. The clubs are in the best position to judge what they need in their squad, taking into account the unavailable player.

I don't disagree but I think if someone like the Roosters lost one of their million dollar players for 12 games and used the 300k they got to get to come in with a mega offer for another superstar I wouldn't be that happy about it.

[Sid]

Yeah, it kind of "frees up" cap space for other areas since we'd need to sign a depth replacement for Rapana anyhow.

[El_Capitano]

Surely you can sign any winger/fullback you want for any price you want, and the $175k relief is deducted from the cap hit, I.e. if you sign Dylan Edwards for 475k he goes on our cap for 300k.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sid]

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/nrl-to ... 4zgus.html

He must be a like-for-like player and his contract value the same as the man he's replacing on a pro rata basis and not exceeding $350,000.

[Neeeegz]

Is Edwards listed as a winger ? Because I doubt the NRL will let us sign a fullback 5/8 with the money we get for rapana ?

Sent from my SM-J530Y using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

I'm not even sure you can use more than the extra money to sign a replacement. It's not clear how it works.

I would think Edwards probably gets knocked back if we try it. It's not really the intention of the clause to get you over the line in signing a much more expensive player.

But why should it matter to the NRL or any other club? The Raiders have lost $x due to a player sitting on the sidelines for eight months due to an injury in rep football. The relief isn't $x, it is something less... and it should be $x ie precisely eight months of that player's salary. Regardless, why should it matter to the NRL how the dollars are used? The club should be free to use those cap dollars like any other cap dollar. The clubs are in the best position to judge what they need in their squad, taking into account the unavailable player.

It shouldn't matter how it's used in my opinion, hes a rep player and one of our best, and a huge loss.
And if we decide to use it to bolster the squad then it's beneficial.
But not so much for us, considering we would have better wingers in the squad on 175k+, so as it is, it's a farce that gives nothing to the club providing rep players other than a nuffy that may not play fg in the first place and takes one of our squad positions.
Unless we could use it to top up an offer for a player like Edwards. It's useless

Sent from my SM-J530Y using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[El_Capitano]

Ok so... no then, we can sign someone for 175k for 2019 and then a giant back ended contract for 2020/21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sid]

Ok so... no then, we can sign someone for 175k for 2019 and then a giant back ended contract for 2020/21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think back ended contracts are becoming banned now?

[El_Capitano]

Ok so... no then, we can sign someone for 175k for 2019 and then a giant back ended contract for 2020/21


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think back ended contracts are becoming banned now?

Not bad back end good back end...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kiwi raider]

I suspect the player Raiders will be able to purchase with the relief fund would be more of a cover for Oldfield, now that he'd be moving up to the starting position, rather than a cover for Rapana.

Yea agree with this, there’s a rumour on the warriors forum that we might sign Charnze Nicoll-Klokstad, that’s the sort of signing I’d expect with the salary cap relief from rapana’s injury

[Sid]

I suspect the player Raiders will be able to purchase with the relief fund would be more of a cover for Oldfield, now that he'd be moving up to the starting position, rather than a cover for Rapana.

Yea agree with this, there’s a rumour on the warriors forum that we might sign Charnze Nicoll-Klokstad, that’s the sort of signing I’d expect with the salary cap relief from rapana’s injury

Thought that Nicoll-Klokstad was a half, but he is listed as a fullback / backline utility player

I imagine Raiders are sounding out a fair few players for this position, so wouldn't surprise me if he is one of the guys on the list

[RTW]

So you sign a back up player as player 29 in your group effectively costing you nothing and use the money saved on player 29 to pick up Edwards as player 30 still pay him what ever it is you want to pay him.


Sent from my iPhone using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[kiwi raider]

I suspect the player Raiders will be able to purchase with the relief fund would be more of a cover for Oldfield, now that he'd be moving up to the starting position, rather than a cover for Rapana.

Yea agree with this, there’s a rumour on the warriors forum that we might sign Charnze Nicoll-Klokstad, that’s the sort of signing I’d expect with the salary cap relief from rapana’s injury

Thought that Nicoll-Klokstad was a half, but he is listed as a fullback / backline utility player

I imagine Raiders are sounding out a fair few players for this position, so wouldn't surprise me if he is one of the guys on the list

Yea he can probably fill in as a half but he’s much more of a winger/fullback

[edwahu]

So you sign a back up player as player 29 in your group effectively costing you nothing and use the money saved on player 29 to pick up Edwards as player 30 still pay him what ever it is you want to pay him.


Sent from my iPhone using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

The problem is Player 29 is usually a backup player who would be on minimum anyway. The Rapana money upgrades that guy but doesn't free up any extra money for Edwards.

[Sid]

So you sign a back up player as player 29 in your group effectively costing you nothing and use the money saved on player 29 to pick up Edwards as player 30 still pay him what ever it is you want to pay him.


Sent from my iPhone using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

The problem is Player 29 is usually a backup player who would be on minimum anyway. The Rapana money upgrades that guy but doesn't free up any extra money for Edwards.

From how I understand it the relief money would cover that minimum wage at least which has to be paid anyhow, which I think is $72,500 for squad players 27-30.. so an extra 72K that would have been cemented aside to pay minimum wage can be used elsewhere is one way to look at it I guess.

[Dusty]

Does the player we bring into the squad remain with the club once Rapana returns from injury?

[edwahu]

Does the player we bring into the squad remain with the club once Rapana returns from injury?

Yes, they have to sign a minimum 12 month deal and take a squad spot unless there are 30 players already, in which case you can have an 31 but you need to rule the injured player out for the whole year.

[Sid]

Does the player we bring into the squad remain with the club once Rapana returns from injury?

Yes, they have to sign a minimum 12 month deal and take a squad spot unless there are 30 players already, in which case you can have an 31 but you need to rule the injured player out for the whole year.

so while the compensation is based on pro-rata amount for 12 games, the contract ideally would need to stretch across a full season

[edwahu]

Does the player we bring into the squad remain with the club once Rapana returns from injury?

Yes, they have to sign a minimum 12 month deal and take a squad spot unless there are 30 players already, in which case you can have an 31 but you need to rule the injured player out for the whole year.

so while the compensation is based on pro-rata amount for 12 games, the contract ideally would need to stretch across a full season

Yes, or the remainder of the season if your player gets ruled out during the year. It works out worse for us because we had an injury at the start of the year vs mid year.

Actually in the article below Don says its 12 months, meaning if you lost someone mid year you would have to sign someone until mid the following season, but I doubt that's accurate.

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/sport/ ... 50e8s.html

[Matt]

I suspect the player Raiders will be able to purchase with the relief fund would be more of a cover for Oldfield, now that he'd be moving up to the starting position, rather than a cover for Rapana.

Yea agree with this, there’s a rumour on the warriors forum that we might sign Charnze Nicoll-Klokstad, that’s the sort of signing I’d expect with the salary cap relief from rapana’s injury

Yep. He is probably a 175K replacement back

[Matt]

Guys, my understanding is we only have 27 player on our roster ATM. So his replacement can be any 1 of 3 players. Which means we still have room for an Edwards.

[RedRaider]

I understand Robert Jennings remains unsigned for 2019. Rapa is a winger. Like for like positionally. Spine players cost a lot more than wingers. I hope we have made some enquiries with Jennings management.

[Matt]

I understand Robert Jennings remains unsigned for 2019. Rapa is a winger. Like for like positionally. Spine players cost a lot more than wingers. I hope we have made some enquiries with Jennings management.

I like Jennings, but he is a FGer. So, what do you do when Rapa returns? And, what do you do long term?

Is the idea to play Cotric at FB and Jack at 6?
OR
Are you looking to move on say BJ next yr to move Cotric to the centres?

[RedRaider]

Matt, it would provide us with plenty of options. Cotric at right center.

Sticky thinks Wighton is one of the best FBs in the NRL. I don't think he'll want to move him. I like Edwards but I don't know that Sticky would move Jack given his opinion of him. Also the NRL would have Edwards down as a fullback I reckon.