Phil Gould

[Terry Zarsoff]

This saga is another reminder that no matter how well-resourced a club is, they’re often still beholden to older men with massive egos; egos that can have a corrosive effect on that club’s fortunes.

We’re stuck with ZtH on the sidelines as sort of a cross between Uriah Heep and Ray Donovan’s dad (or maybe Frank Constanza), with a Bozo cameo; the Goosters have ’You’re welcome’ Politis; Gary Goyle’s at Gouldriff and Parra suffered for years under the reign of Fitzy.

How in their various ways have those gentlemen held their respective clubs back at different times?

 

[KNUCKLES]

Similar. But I would prefer just a meal, save the good for the root.

As long as I drop my bag off I'm not to fussed.

P.s I'm a charmer

 

[Tragic Eagle]

Gould has too much power at Penrith and often people with power and influence generally have a sizable ego that can effect their better judgment. With great power comes great responsibility to ensure that power is used for the best interests of the club that you work for rather than to meet personal agendas or vendetta's. It's easier to punt the coach now whilst the side is sitting 5th rather than trying to move him on after winning a premiership. If this rationale was to apply then the decision made was clearly not made in the best interests of the Penrith club. Gould denies his interest in Ivan Cleary and retaining Nathan Cleary as the motivating factor and points his finger at Penrith Chairman David O'Neill as the one responsible for trying to poach Ivan Cleary from the Tigers. That for me is the final straw and if anybody should been shown the door for the good of the Penrith Club its Gould! Gould cannot put the club before himself and is fast becoming a significant liability that is going to cost the club a fortune. I don't believe that Gould is providing the club any financial contribution out of his own pocket. The Penrith Board need to show some metal and go into damage control at seasons end and move Gould on. i would not be making any announcements about the coach next year until the 2018 campaign is over. Hearing from Griffin on NRL 360 that Gould was undermining Griffin by communicating with the players through the assistant coach really shocked me and I wouldn't have expected that from Gould. No experienced NRL coach could possibly have any confidence that they would not suffer the same fate as Griffin unless they were Gould's puppet.

 

[The Who]

Money is obviously not an issue at Penrith, but doesn't the NRL have a Cap on how much a club can spend on coaching?
If they have to pay Hook out $1.6-M, and Cleary $1-m a year/ or Bennett $1m+ a year, wouldn't this 'stretch' the rules?

 

[mickqld]

An article I read made sense. It stated that the riff could win a premiership under Griffin but it would be a PR disaster to axe a premiership winning coach. What an arsehole of a way to treat Griffin.
I think Gould's head has already internally exploded with greed and self importance.

Exactly why this has played out. Bee sting couldn't run the risk of Penrith winning or at least to a prelim final and having to sack Griff.

 

[mickqld]

Money is obviously not an issue at Penrith, but doesn't the NRL have a Cap on how much a club can spend on coaching?
If they have to pay Hook out $1.6-M, and Cleary $1-m a year/ or Bennett $1m+ a year, wouldn't this 'stretch' the rules?

The nrl only have rules that fuk Manly. The rest are ok especially where the nrl ceo is guilty of the same sht.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

I think the coaching Cap comes in next year , so they can pay out Griffin ( reports suggesting 1.6 million) this year and not have an issue.

 

[40 years an eagle]

I think the coaching Cap comes in next year , so they can pay out Griffin ( reports suggesting 1.6 million) this year and not have an issue.

Surely with Hook's contract covering 2019 and '20 the money attributed to those years must come off the cap for those years. There is a signed contract after all.

Only if it was Manly I guess.

 

[HappilyManly]

Surely with Hook's contract covering 2019 and '20 the money attributed to those years must come off the cap for those years. There is a signed contract after all.

Only if it was Manly I guess.

It's not a retrospective rule, so expect lots of Coach movements by 31st October

 

[The Who]

It's not a retrospective rule, so expect lots of Coach movements by 31st October

So if they have to pay compensation to the Tigers of several million dollars it wouldn't be counted in the 2019 Cap?
Now the early sacking is making more sense.
I wonder how long it will be before a journo picks up on this and plagiarises our work?

 

[40 years an eagle]

It's not a retrospective rule

Yes, and that is one of the big problems with the NRL accounting system.

Contracts should be binding. ALL legally promised monies(both allocated and permitted by the rules) INTENDED at time of contracting need to be paid out of funds from each fiscal year covered by that contract.

This would IMMEDIATELY stop players, coaches and and staff from being poached or reneging on contracts they should be legally bound to honour.

The NRL interprets EVERYTHING in a way that suits their own agenda regardless of integrity, morality or the REAL best interests of the game as a whole.

All this crap needs to stop. It is destroying the ability of some clubs to BUILD their culture and deprives supporters of their clubs having any identity .

It is one of the biggest things destroying the game.

Edited: typos.

 

[40 years an eagle]

So if they have to pay compensation to the Tigers of several million dollars it wouldn't be counted in the 2019 Cap?
Now the early sacking is making more sense.
I wonder how long it will be before a journo picks up on this and plagiarises our work?

I doubt any such "compensation" would come out of any of the caps but from club coffers.

 

[HappilyManly]

So if they have to pay compensation to the Tigers of several million dollars it wouldn't be counted in the 2019 Cap?
Now the early sacking is making more sense.
I wonder how long it will be before a journo picks up on this and plagiarises our work?

Journos know this but want to keep their connections with the Clubs so will not report this as #crisis

I believe the Footy Ops Cap is going to be $7 million from next year. Not clear on wether this is just staff costs or ewuipment, travel, insurance etc

Hook made a comment that he had 25 staff.

Therefore lots of these off field staff will be swapped around by end October.

 

[pjayz]

Journos know this but want to keep their connections with the Clubs so will not report this as #crisis

I believe the Footy Ops Cap is going to be $7 million from next year. Not clear on wether this is just staff costs or ewuipment, travel, insurance etc

Hook made a comment that he had 25 staff.

Therefore lots of these off field staff will be swapped around by end October.

The other point is that the penalty for going over this cap is different to going over the playing group’s salary cap (at least that is what was reported) - it is a monetary fine as opposed to any potential loss of competition points etc. Whilst they don’t want to throw money away - the rich clubs are still more likely to spend overs if they believe it will bring them a premiership.

 

[Class of 96]

This should have been a poll.

But I think the one thing we all agree on is that we want Gus' head to explode.

If that thing explodes, I wouldn’t want to be within 100km of the event.

 

[47MVEagle]

Just saw Gus on the footy show saying he wasn't going to sit there & badmouth Hook...then proceeded to sit there & badmouth Hook.

Interesting that he said Wallace resigned twice as assistant coach because of Hook but Gus talked him into staying.

Gus reckons most everyone at Penrith (players & staff) wouldn't say a bad word about Hook because he (Gus) wanted them to protect him (Hook) from the media.

 

[weev]

Or simply his head explodes....

.....because it’s the size of a Wembley Regulation soccer ball, that’s been accidentally stung by bees.

Beautiful description!

 

[wombatgc]

The other point is that the penalty for going over this cap is different to going over the playing group’s salary cap (at least that is what was reported) - it is a monetary fine as opposed to any potential loss of competition points etc. Whilst they don’t want to throw money away - the rich clubs are still more likely to spend overs if they believe it will bring them a premiership.

It'll be another toothless tiger legislation. They can't control the tpa's, fat chance they'll be able to regulate a footy ops cap.

 

[ALinda]

Just saw Gus on the footy show saying he wasn't going to sit there & badmouth Hook...then proceeded to sit there & badmouth Hook.

Interesting that he said Wallace resigned twice as assistant coach because of Hook but Gus talked him into staying.

I agree with your 1st sentence because that's exactly what happened.

However, I got the impression it was Cameron Ciraldo, not Wallace, who Gus said had resigned twice but he talked him out of it.

 

[Bill Hamilton]

I agree with your 1st sentence because that's exactly what happened.

However, I got the impression it was Cameron Ciraldo, not Wallace, who Gus said had resigned twice but he talked him out of it.

Yeah I got the impression it was Ciraldo. Old Ankles Gould had to get Hannant, Soward and a list of nevilles to back him up. I have come to the conclusion that if Gould told me it was raining I would have to go outside to check.

Nice job Ankles on not bad mouthing Griffin.