1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Life Members

Discussion in 'Rugby League Forum' started by Growler FNQ, Sep 23, 2014.

  1. Growler FNQ

    Growler FNQ Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    41
    3
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0
    in the wake of Choc leaving to Parra and his brattish behaviour in the latter part of this season, I think the MWFC should wait until retirement or departure before bestowing this great honour upon a player (Life membership). I can look back over that role of honour with the greatest of memories, not sure I will ever feel that way about choc Watmaugh the morale killer.
     
  2. Hamster Huey

    Hamster Huey Space Invader Premium Member

    1,828
    643
    Ratings:
    +990 / 7
    Wasn't he inducted recently, with Jason King?
     
  3. Shoe1

    Shoe1 Well-Known Member

    6,225
    1,989
    Ratings:
    +4,649 / 74
    200 games seems to be the threshold, and fair enough. They made choc wait a lot longer than 200! Wonder why, did they have reservations?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. dowdz

    dowdz Well-Known Member Premium Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    2,780
    681
    Ratings:
    +853 / 5
    Isn't Des on that list? It's sad, that some of the great players of this club, have left it in a bad way.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. bones

    bones Bones Knows Premium Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    8,367
    5,100
    Ratings:
    +8,999 / 102
    Like Glenn will.
     
  6. dowdz

    dowdz Well-Known Member Premium Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    2,780
    681
    Ratings:
    +853 / 5
    At least Gity has been classy about it. Sucks that he didn't finish off his career here. Will be missed by all. He and Kitey should of finished their careers with Manly : (
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Frogz

    Frogz Don't mess with the goat, he has photos. Premium Member

    2,175
    647
    Sydney, Australia
    Ratings:
    +1,392 / 36
    Maybe @ 200 games its too soon...need to evaluate the "entire commitment" to the club to be a life member...i.e...wait till they have departed and or retired and how they did It....I think Life membership comes after your career is over...its an elite squad and not just a reward for number of games played
     
  8. mmmdl

    mmmdl Active Member

    305
    91
    Ratings:
    +105 / 2
    not a lot of players get to 200 games at the one club. 3 years ago I think it was the Dragons had 4 players all having played 200 games in the same squad - it was one of the players last games. It was the first time that had ever happened - so in 100+ years. We would have had that on the weekend had Choc been available to play.

    It's rarified air. People are bitter at the moment about Watmough and rightly so. But I'm sure they felt the same about Fulton when he went to the Roosters. Yet he is still considered a Manly legend and not someone people would say shouldn't have life membership. Choc WILL regret this decision. Time heals.
     
  9. simon64

    simon64 Well-Known Member Premium Member

    2,275
    991
    Ratings:
    +2,087 / 27
    You're right dowds. But ask yourself, who is to blame ?

    Players with only a couple of years left in them get forced out because clubs must have succession plans. The ones that don't, are not Manly and don't have the success we have.

    And they have the audacity to put notional values on players so that even if they would rather take less to stay, they aren't allowed. (Last time I looked, if I wanted to take a job at Maccas for $12 an hour, that was my prerogative.)

    As Beaver has shown, being a one club man opens up post football opportunities with that club. Players need to take a longer term view and the NRL needs to let them do that. If Gift thought he could take 100K for the next 2 seasons and then move into a non playing role, that's a smart option. You're a long time retired.

    I'm not saying throw the cap out. The cap is necessary to make sure clubs don't overspend and that the richer clubs don't buy up all the talent creating a lopsided repetitive competition.

    But little temporary "breaches" so that club legends don't have to leave is a smart move for mine. The fact that fans have made observations like this over and over and the NRL are too stupid to figure it out, speaks volumes for the d...heads who run this game.

    Drives me nuts.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. StuBoot

    StuBoot Well-Known Member Premium Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    1,347
    440
    Ratings:
    +796 / 7
    200 games as a player is the criteria.

    That's 8 straight seasons in the modern game which is an achievement.

    We have DCE, Foz and Ferris halfway there which is a mighty achievement already and isn't Ballin only a handful away?

    It's unfortunate that Gifty came up short & Choc could've gone down as the most capped of all, next year he could've made 300. He's well passed 200 and we can never take that from him.
     
  11. dowdz

    dowdz Well-Known Member Premium Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    2,780
    681
    Ratings:
    +853 / 5
    Well said @simon64.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. StuBoot

    StuBoot Well-Known Member Premium Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    1,347
    440
    Ratings:
    +796 / 7
    Yep, agree.

    As @conanu mentioned in another thread re Gifty - "The salary cap isn't helping to keep a level playing field when he is bought by a club that will possibly win the GF this year"

    So a long serving player gets forced out of a club that has been a finalist for 10 years to be bought by a club that has made the last three Prelim Finals.

    Yep, that makes sense...but he's replacing a player who has been in the game for four years that is leaving to go to another code.
     
  13. Masked Eagle

    Masked Eagle Well-Known Member

    3,939
    919
    Ratings:
    +976 / 0
    I know people blame the salary cap for us having to move players on, but I think you have to recognise the impact the cap has had that has enabled us to get some of these players in the first place. If not for the cap some clubs could just stock pile these players only to stop other clubs from getting them. From all reports the Dragons knew Snake was going to be a star, but they weren't that red hot on Gifty enabling us to get them as a package deal. If the Dragons didn't need to worry about the cap, they probably would have just paid Gift to keep Snake. Same with players like Kite, Robertson and any other numerous players we've managed to sign because clubs have to make the decision not to keep them due to priorities within the cap. Hell, the Knights might have kept a hold of Ben Kennedy who many credit as being crucial in the rebuilding of our club after the NE. I think its doing a reasonable enough job in that not too many clubs are able to stockpile NRL quality players simply for backup and that has level even out the competition and make the NRL arguably on of the most even competitions from top to bottom in professional sports. I'm not suggesting its perfect, I don't think there is a perfect option, but just offering another side of the argument.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Growler FNQ

    Growler FNQ Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    41
    3
    Ratings:
    +5 / 0
    I am sure he was, whilst he has been a great asset for us for many years and some-what a fav of mine i think if mwfc waited until now he would have blown it.
    [hr]
    Gifty will sit nicely among that lot if the honour is bestowed upon him
     
  15. Mark from Brisbane

    Mark from Brisbane Living the dream Premium Member

    16,360
    5,354
    Brisbane
    Ratings:
    +12,786 / 258
    One thing I think we must remember is the ability of some clubs to garner huge 3rd party support can make a mockery of the cap.

    For example does anyone in their right mind think Lockyer was on $250K a year the last 4 years of his Bronco's contract??

    Id be surprised if it wasn't 4 times that amount.

    His face was on hundreds of advertising posters, TV, and he was always doing "sportsmens" lunches and events.

    You will have all heard of the "thoroughbreds", collectively worth billions, not part of the sponsors and so able to 3rd party any deal they want.

    In my humble opinion, clubs should have a significant limit to 3rd party agreements, and these should be used purely to keep the marquee players in the game.

    Just imagine the amount of pull Rusty Crowe would have in this area.

    Maybe I'm wrong, maybe there is a limit, but if so doesn't seem to affect the Rorters or the Vermin.
     
  16. Frogz

    Frogz Don't mess with the goat, he has photos. Premium Member

    2,175
    647
    Sydney, Australia
    Ratings:
    +1,392 / 36
    Where is Hugh Jackman when we need him $$$$$
     
  17. manlyfan76

    manlyfan76 Parra Trolls are the best. Premium Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    8,575
    2,435
    Anywhere but Parramatta
    Ratings:
    +5,365 / 111
    In my sports club life membership consideration is about long service to the club and the way that you have held yourself or played in that time must reflect the club in the right manner to be considered for the vote to election to life member status.
    Basically if your selfish or disruptive you won't be a life member.
     
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page