I believe so- he came purely for the opportunity to fight Oldy, Simonson and co for the FB position after Warriors told him he was surplus.
So yeah he came for peanuts by RL standards.
Moderator: GH Moderators
You’re right.GreenMachine wrote: ↑July 24, 2019, 11:04 amI'd be taking steps to extend beyond 2 years, that is what I meant.BadnMean wrote: ↑July 24, 2019, 10:28 amThis is literally a thread announcing a two year extension that you are posting inGreenMachine wrote: ↑July 24, 2019, 8:45 am The sooner we lock him up to an extension, the better I’ll sleep.
His stats are off the chart for a first year young fullback.
Not to mention his excellent positioning.
Anyone know if he actively marshals the defence from the back?
The 2 year deal will be for peanuts when compared to what he can get on the open market now that he is a known quantity.
The club should ensure he doesn't have his head turned.
Sent from my SM-G960F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by TapatalkThe Rickman wrote:To be fair on dubby here though, I can count on no fingers the amount of times he's been correct about anything rugby league, and this is just an extension of that.-TW- wrote: ↑July 23, 2019, 10:16 pmOof..dubby wrote:Pretty stupid name. Charnze.
He'll either crash or burn. Let's hope he burns.
FTR i'm not a fan of Jack at 6. Dude was horrid in his last stint in the 6.
This will be a crap season when we've got a makeshift 6 and B grade fullback.
Oh well. Worst case we send Jack to 1 and Sam 7.
Sent from my SM-G960F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Sent from my CPH1831 using Tapatalk
dubby wrote: ↑July 24, 2019, 4:07 pm From the guy who did not know McCrone was terrible until his rugby league clueless gf pointed it outSent from my SM-G960F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by TapatalkThe Rickman wrote:To be fair on dubby here though, I can count on no fingers the amount of times he's been correct about anything rugby league, and this is just an extension of that.-TW- wrote: ↑July 23, 2019, 10:16 pmOof..dubby wrote:Pretty stupid name. Charnze.
He'll either crash or burn. Let's hope he burns.
FTR i'm not a fan of Jack at 6. Dude was horrid in his last stint in the 6.
This will be a crap season when we've got a makeshift 6 and B grade fullback.
Oh well. Worst case we send Jack to 1 and Sam 7.
Sent from my SM-G960F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Sent from my CPH1831 using Tapatalk
You'd think so. He's essentially going to spend all season playing Mounties unless there is a serious injury crisis. But he's the sort of player clubs would keep to lead their reserve grade teams in the old days, so maybe that's what they have in mind.
100%TongueFTW wrote: ↑July 24, 2019, 6:50 pm Have to agree with the above. Luke Bateman is an OK signing at minimum wage. I seem to remember a story last year of him being disappointed with his offer and wanting to “prove his worth” this year.
I feel like the game has passed players like him and Shaun Fensom by, the “hard working toiler” lock forward really is no longer a thing, too one dimensional.
Holy crap! Did I make this happen?greeneyed wrote:Canberra Raiders look to lock in Charnze Nicoll-Klokstad, with an upgrade and contract extension
He's been one of the recruits of the year, now fullback Charnze Nicoll-Klokstad is set to be rewarded with a contract upgrade and extension. An extension for John Bateman is next on the agenda.
"Without a doubt we want to keep [Nicoll-Klokstad], we want to extend him, all of the above and we'll meet with him then," Furner said.
Read more: https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/ ... /?cs=14239
That's about right. I read this "he's a Raider" stuff as - we can sign him for less than we'd get similar in for...PigRickman wrote: ↑July 24, 2019, 6:44 pm It's all relative to his pay packet though isnt it?
If Bateman is a back of the roster min wage re-signing then i think that is perfectly fine. You hope you never need him but if you do, he's got a high work rate (albeit with minimal to no impact), he's a reasonably effecient tackler in the middle. And if you get in a major jam, he comes on the park for 20-30 minutes and you wont lose the game because of him. He wont win you a game either. But he'll do his job to a bottom of the barrel NRL level... that's find as 28th-29th man in your squad
Even when he was fit he hasn't been named even in the raiders extended squad, so I find it funny he took less last year to hang around and not be around the squad ? I thought he was gone for surezim wrote:Luke would have to be re-signing on min wage surely. There isn't really another reason to re-sign him that makes sense to me.
Agree with both posts.BadnMean wrote: ↑July 24, 2019, 8:29 pmThat's about right. I read this "he's a Raider" stuff as - we can sign him for less than we'd get similar in for...PigRickman wrote: ↑July 24, 2019, 6:44 pm It's all relative to his pay packet though isnt it?
If Bateman is a back of the roster min wage re-signing then i think that is perfectly fine. You hope you never need him but if you do, he's got a high work rate (albeit with minimal to no impact), he's a reasonably effecient tackler in the middle. And if you get in a major jam, he comes on the park for 20-30 minutes and you wont lose the game because of him. He wont win you a game either. But he'll do his job to a bottom of the barrel NRL level... that's find as 28th-29th man in your squad
Williams is a man good backup half. No doubt. They actually don't come on super bargain prices usually as they are faring FG'ers. If we get him for lowball, that's a win.
L Bateman was only 23 when he did his knee. Had some good FG games and some bog average ones but he knows what it's about. He actually has potential do be better at that age + some decent FG experience so why scrap him if we can keep him for low $$$. We already have some choice kids in the system/squad so if we round out the rest with solid FG fill ins for another year or two then we have a deep squad that can cope with setbacks and still win enough games to contend.
If they leave or are released- I really appreciate their efforts, wholehearted players the both of them. But if they stay and love the club, that builds morale + they actually have value as back up NRL players who can do a solid job for a week or a month for the team. They're just not good enough to be a main 17, but it's a 30 man squad. I don't want 13 other rookies, I want half old heads the rookies have to work their ass off to outshine and learn off and I want half rookies looking to tear into that FG squad.
Certainly didn't go to plan for him. He would have thought he'd be able to get a bench spot given previous years but Horsburgh killed it in the trials and then Hudson Young emerged. We don't really need a guy that can mainly defend for the 20min role he would have been given in our first 17. All the young guys offer more with the ball in hand for short stints.Neeeegz wrote: ↑July 24, 2019, 9:03 pmEven when he was fit he hasn't been named even in the raiders extended squad, so I find it funny he took less last year to hang around and not be around the squad ? I thought he was gone for sure.zim wrote:Luke would have to be re-signing on min wage surely. There isn't really another reason to re-sign him that makes sense to me.
Fair call too. But we need to find room to upgrade a few blokes soonzim wrote:Certainly didn't go to plan for him. He would have thought he'd be able to get a bench spot given previous years but Horsburgh killed it in the trials and then Hudson Young emerged. We don't really need a guy that can mainly defend for the 20min role he would have been given in our first 17. All the young guys offer more with the ball in hand for short stints.Neeeegz wrote: ↑July 24, 2019, 9:03 pmEven when he was fit he hasn't been named even in the raiders extended squad, so I find it funny he took less last year to hang around and not be around the squad ? I thought he was gone for sure.zim wrote:Luke would have to be re-signing on min wage surely. There isn't really another reason to re-sign him that makes sense to me.
He's an excellent trainer though so he's not going to be a negative influence.
Having a guy with 71 first grade games on min wage available for those 3 times a year you might need him is fine by me, if that's what it turns out to be.
Yeah that's why min wage is the right call on Bateman if we have to make it. You can't avoid spending that money on someone so it won't take it off upgrades / extensions.Neeeegz wrote: ↑July 24, 2019, 9:42 pmFair call too. But we need to find room to upgrade a few blokes soon.zim wrote:Certainly didn't go to plan for him. He would have thought he'd be able to get a bench spot given previous years but Horsburgh killed it in the trials and then Hudson Young emerged. We don't really need a guy that can mainly defend for the 20min role he would have been given in our first 17. All the young guys offer more with the ball in hand for short stints.Neeeegz wrote: ↑July 24, 2019, 9:03 pmEven when he was fit he hasn't been named even in the raiders extended squad, so I find it funny he took less last year to hang around and not be around the squad ? I thought he was gone for sure.zim wrote:Luke would have to be re-signing on min wage surely. There isn't really another reason to re-sign him that makes sense to me.
He's an excellent trainer though so he's not going to be a negative influence.
Having a guy with 71 first grade games on min wage available for those 3 times a year you might need him is fine by me, if that's what it turns out to be.
Agree re his training and behaviourRuben Daley wrote: ↑July 24, 2019, 9:19 pm And there's no way the club will pay overs and jeopardise the horde of talented guys we need to keep.
Not to forget he is also a great back up hooker....PigRickman wrote:It's all relative to his pay packet though isnt it?
If Bateman is a back of the roster min wage re-signing then i think that is perfectly fine. You hope you never need him but if you do, he's got a high work rate (albeit with minimal to no impact), he's a reasonably effecient tackler in the middle. And if you get in a major jam, he comes on the park for 20-30 minutes and you wont lose the game because of him. He wont win you a game either. But he'll do his job to a bottom of the barrel NRL level... that's find as 28th-29th man in your squad
That'd be me, and we sure did. Looks like McFadden was right on the money.
Yeah, I have those worries still too but I’m hopeful we’ve moved on from those days.PigRickman wrote: ↑July 24, 2019, 10:08 pmAgree re his training and behaviourRuben Daley wrote: ↑July 24, 2019, 9:19 pm And there's no way the club will pay overs and jeopardise the horde of talented guys we need to keep.
But I’d draw the line here. I have no confidence that the club can effectively manage its cap if I’m honest
Most of us can probably agree Luke Bateman on 110k or what ever the min wage is, is a reasonable re-signing. But I can never shake the feeling that these sort of guys end up on more than we’d ever believe
3 hours after you ordered for this to happen this article comes out.. El Capitano is higher up in the ranks than I realised!El_Capitano wrote:Holy crap! Did I make this happen?greeneyed wrote:Canberra Raiders look to lock in Charnze Nicoll-Klokstad, with an upgrade and contract extension
He's been one of the recruits of the year, now fullback Charnze Nicoll-Klokstad is set to be rewarded with a contract upgrade and extension. An extension for John Bateman is next on the agenda.
"Without a doubt we want to keep [Nicoll-Klokstad], we want to extend him, all of the above and we'll meet with him then," Furner said.
Read more: https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/ ... /?cs=14239
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Generalissimo!Sid wrote: ↑July 25, 2019, 8:04 am3 hours after you ordered for this to happen this article comes out.. El Capitano is higher up in the ranks than I realised!El_Capitano wrote:Holy crap! Did I make this happen?greeneyed wrote:Canberra Raiders look to lock in Charnze Nicoll-Klokstad, with an upgrade and contract extension
He's been one of the recruits of the year, now fullback Charnze Nicoll-Klokstad is set to be rewarded with a contract upgrade and extension. An extension for John Bateman is next on the agenda.
"Without a doubt we want to keep [Nicoll-Klokstad], we want to extend him, all of the above and we'll meet with him then," Furner said.
Read more: https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/ ... /?cs=14239
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
His defence/lateral movement is ordinary, he gets dominated in tackles and rarely wins the ruck. He doesn’t have an offload or late footwork at the line, yet isn’t a metre eater either. He makes handling errors at key times, not to mention he is injury prone and has left us down a man plenty of times due to his tackling technique meaning his head is in the wrong position. With the current skill set required, he is simply not good enough for first grade. At his current level, he is in the Jarrad Kennedy, Ben Jones, Jake Foster group of players that belong in reserve grade.The Rickman wrote: ↑July 25, 2019, 8:52 am Jesus guys, to be fair on Luke Bateman, if he came into this current squad the way they’re playing this year and played off the bench he absolutely wouldn’t let anyone down
He’s not gonna win you the game but he’s never been the sort of player that loses you the game either. He cops WAY too much OTT crap on this forum just because he’s not a superstar