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

News: Big Willie, Rabbitoh trial, Cliffy & Burns

Discussion in 'Rugby League Forum' started by ManlyBacker, Jan 23, 2010.

  1. ManlyBacker

    ManlyBacker Winging it Staff Member

    11,596
    843
    Ratings:
    +971 / 7
    <div class="content-item" />
    <p />Blindside column this week looks at Big Willie, the upcoming Rabbitoh's trial, the ageless Cliffy and Burnsie still visits the Northern Beaches.


    <a href="http://www.silvertails.net/news/4502-big-willie-rabbitoh-trial-cliffy-a-burns.html">Read the full article</a>
     
  2. DSM5

    DSM5 Well-Known Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    9,997
    516
    Ratings:
    +516 / 0
    Re: News: Big Willie, Rabbitoh trial, Cliffy & Burns

    What happened to Ox's money?  Surely it wasn't all used up to top up. 
     
  3. TokyoEagle

    TokyoEagle Well-Known Member

    1,664
    158
    Ratings:
    +265 / 4
    Re: News: Big Willie, Rabbitoh trial, Cliffy & Burns

    You're most probably right DSM but don't tell Willie that.
     
  4. DUFFMAN

    DUFFMAN Active Member

    644
    82
    Ratings:
    +296 / 5
    Re: News: Big Willie, Rabbitoh trial, Cliffy & Burns

    In the Bec & Buzz coloum this week they have Willie playing for us, so that means it will never happen.
     
  5. DSM5

    DSM5 Well-Known Member 2016 Tipping Competitor

    9,997
    516
    Ratings:
    +516 / 0
    Re: News: Big Willie, Rabbitoh trial, Cliffy & Burns

    I hate the guy, but he would certainly be useful.  Just so long as we don't pay him much.  Let the chooks pay. 
     
  6. Ryan

    Ryan Well-Known Member

    14,912
    2,683
    Ratings:
    +6,116 / 287
    Re: News: Big Willie, Rabbitoh trial, Cliffy & Burns

    They are saying the chooks have to legally payout the contract. He'd be playing for peanuts, and he'd be an amazing addition. He'd certainly have something to prove, but more importantly, would put a lot of pressure on who was selected, and who wasn't - which is only a good thing.

    But additionally, like you say - we had our roster set, with a view to having Matt Orford and his $350k+ contract on the books - he leaves - yet we have fully spent our salary cap?

    Interesting. Maybe the 2011 retention machine has already started?
     

Share This Page