RE: "Burns in demand"
- Thread starter Nutzcraw
- Start date
RE: "Burns in demand"
what ever happens i just hope this isnt another greedy manager about to splash this all over every back page just as Travis is finding form.
Monaghsgate polarised Manly fans with the scars still quite fresh, we dont need another one.
If Manly dont sign Travis he is entitled to look after himself, but it dolesnt need to be played out in the media and if his manager does hold the club at gunpoint like Monaghs manager did, then let him go, as much as id hate to see it.
I really hope im wrong with my read on all this, but it looks like Deja vu to me.
what ever happens i just hope this isnt another greedy manager about to splash this all over every back page just as Travis is finding form.
Monaghsgate polarised Manly fans with the scars still quite fresh, we dont need another one.
If Manly dont sign Travis he is entitled to look after himself, but it dolesnt need to be played out in the media and if his manager does hold the club at gunpoint like Monaghs manager did, then let him go, as much as id hate to see it.
I really hope im wrong with my read on all this, but it looks like Deja vu to me.
fLIP
UFO Hunter
RE: "Burns in demand"
I don't know how to take this one. I am one of those who thinks Burn's should be our permanent 5/8th for now and years to come.
The whole put Jamie in the halves has some merit to it because of his stint in the super league but he is at heart one of the worlds best centers.
The difficulty at the moment is we have 2 rep players already in the centers. I would hate to see one of our best junior prospects in Burns lose a contract because someone can't tell Steve Matai that he's playing reserves.
What happens in a couple of years when Bell retires or Matai decides he'll go and play with his warriors mates? We need Lyon in the centers and then who goes to 5/8th? Monaghan? The fact is we only have one halves option if we want years of success. That's Orford and Burns. Then we are looking at Groom and Burns and so on.
Just when it appears our Juniors are looking more like the successors we hear rumors that our best 5/8th since Cliffy might be struggling to get a contract.
I just hope our club isn't going for short term success and long term loss because for the first time since before the Northern Eagles days our club looks like its heading somewhere big and to stay there. Why are we considering throwing that away over a center position?
I don't know how to take this one. I am one of those who thinks Burn's should be our permanent 5/8th for now and years to come.
The whole put Jamie in the halves has some merit to it because of his stint in the super league but he is at heart one of the worlds best centers.
The difficulty at the moment is we have 2 rep players already in the centers. I would hate to see one of our best junior prospects in Burns lose a contract because someone can't tell Steve Matai that he's playing reserves.
What happens in a couple of years when Bell retires or Matai decides he'll go and play with his warriors mates? We need Lyon in the centers and then who goes to 5/8th? Monaghan? The fact is we only have one halves option if we want years of success. That's Orford and Burns. Then we are looking at Groom and Burns and so on.
Just when it appears our Juniors are looking more like the successors we hear rumors that our best 5/8th since Cliffy might be struggling to get a contract.
I just hope our club isn't going for short term success and long term loss because for the first time since before the Northern Eagles days our club looks like its heading somewhere big and to stay there. Why are we considering throwing that away over a center position?
RE: "Burns in demand"
I agree flip.... as much as i like matai.. he has to be the one to make way. I really don't want to see burns go anywhere. It's not that matai is a **** player (DSM5) it's just that in the position he plays we have 2 better players and unfortunately for him his position only caters for two players.
I agree flip.... as much as i like matai.. he has to be the one to make way. I really don't want to see burns go anywhere. It's not that matai is a **** player (DSM5) it's just that in the position he plays we have 2 better players and unfortunately for him his position only caters for two players.
Canteen Worker
First Grader
RE: "Burns in demand"
Let Monas go - save the $240 k, keep Ballin, Burns and we do better anyway if you ask me.
Let Monas go - save the $240 k, keep Ballin, Burns and we do better anyway if you ask me.
RE: "Burns in demand"
i agree. monas should be the one to go, he's been a good workhorse for us, but was never a stand out player. save the 200 grand and give burns a decent deal.
somehow i dont think burns will threaten to go to union al la tahu and growthe. other clubs will fall overthemselves for his signature as there seems to be a dearth of decent halves around.
by the way, to fit matai in the team, i wouldnt mind des trying him on the wing, he would be a pretty scary prospect bombing down the sideline in the mould of a del sailor. i know his speed isnt the best, but he has power in attack and defence.
i agree. monas should be the one to go, he's been a good workhorse for us, but was never a stand out player. save the 200 grand and give burns a decent deal.
somehow i dont think burns will threaten to go to union al la tahu and growthe. other clubs will fall overthemselves for his signature as there seems to be a dearth of decent halves around.
by the way, to fit matai in the team, i wouldnt mind des trying him on the wing, he would be a pretty scary prospect bombing down the sideline in the mould of a del sailor. i know his speed isnt the best, but he has power in attack and defence.
RE: "Burns in demand"
Is funny how we would keep Burns to 'develop', why would we not keep an international centre at the age of 21 on the same terms, who incidentally was our best player for the final 6 weeks of our campaign last season ?
If i had to let anyone go out of Burns/Matai/Monaghan it would def be Monaghan
However i have been reading that the salary cap is likely to go up by 100k next season, and with triming off the fat such as Dunley and some other PL players that have not cut it, along with the distinct possibility Menzies will not be with us next season, there is no reason we cant keep all 3
Is funny how we would keep Burns to 'develop', why would we not keep an international centre at the age of 21 on the same terms, who incidentally was our best player for the final 6 weeks of our campaign last season ?
If i had to let anyone go out of Burns/Matai/Monaghan it would def be Monaghan
However i have been reading that the salary cap is likely to go up by 100k next season, and with triming off the fat such as Dunley and some other PL players that have not cut it, along with the distinct possibility Menzies will not be with us next season, there is no reason we cant keep all 3
ManlyBacker
Winging it
RE: "Burns in demand"
Mimis is the man, and he loves nothing better than to cause this type of media BS. I expect to see a flurry of painful headlines. Travis didn't help himself yesterday but I believe he is another 'Orford heading to another team before we realised what we let go' material. Sign him while he is cheap and self-doubting.
Crushercleal
Bencher
RE: "Burns in demand"
We don't need to let go of Matai. We need backline depth - why would you let go of a young Kiwi International?
We don't need to let go of Matai. We need backline depth - why would you let go of a young Kiwi International?
RE: "Burns in demand"
Yes that is a good pickup and totally correct fluffy, should read that over the last 6 weeks Kite and Matai were among our best
Yes that is a good pickup and totally correct fluffy, should read that over the last 6 weeks Kite and Matai were among our best
Users who are viewing this thread
Members online
No members online now.
Latest posts
| Team | P | W | L | PD | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1 | 1 | 0 | 38 | 4 |
|
2 | 2 | 0 | 32 | 4 |
|
2 | 2 | 0 | 16 | 4 |
|
2 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 4 |
|
2 | 1 | 1 | 26 | 2 |
|
2 | 1 | 1 | 18 | 2 |
|
2 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 2 |
|
1 | 1 | 0 | 8 | 2 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
|
2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
|
2 | 1 | 1 | -2 | 2 |
|
2 | 1 | 1 | -30 | 2 |
|
1 | 0 | 1 | -2 | 0 |
|
2 | 0 | 2 | -9 | 0 |
|
2 | 0 | 2 | -16 | 0 |
|
1 | 0 | 1 | -38 | 0 |
|
2 | 0 | 2 | -54 | 0 |