The No-Look News (Schuster Chronicles)

[Spartan Eagle]

If Schuster gets better and plays for another club in the future and gets paid a decent contract would this offset the debt on our future salary cap??

 

[KNUCKLES]

Whilst it’s a lot of money , can you imagine the **** show we’d have if we played hard ball???

They have paid him $400k this year and will have probably budgeted $800k for this year.

Pay the extra $400k now.

Then it’s $66k a year for the next 3

Peanuts

I could be wrong mate but I think it's a million dollars not including the already paid 400k.

I think a lot of people forget the salary cap concessions for long term players. We do better than most teams in this department so the $200k imputation on the cap is nothing when we still have a larger cap to spend on than say the bulldogs who have no players longer than 3 years with the club. The veteran cap allowance is $300k for players 8 years or longer with the club in the top 30.

I believe that's only available for one player on the roster though. All collectively 300k. And if that's the case I'm not sure if in the NRL I'f a matter of 10k to a player would be a deal breaker

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

I could be wrong mate but I think it's a million dollars not including the already paid 400k.
I believe that's only available for one player on the roster though. All collectively 300k. And if that's the case I'm not sure if in the NRL I'f a matter of 10k to a player would be a deal breaker

No , they’ve already paid $400k this year

It’s $200k a year for the rest of his contract which is 3 years , a total of $1 million.

However , the club are free to pay that amount in any way , so they might for example , pay another $400k this year and then only $66k a year thereafter .

 

[KNUCKLES]

No , they’ve already paid $400k this year

It’s $200k a year for the rest of his contract which is 3 years , a total of $1 million.

However , the club are free to pay that amount in any way , so they might for example , pay another $400k this year and then only $66k a year thereafter .

Ok yes my mistake, I don't know what I was thinking. Duh! Let's move on haha

 

[HK_Eagle]

The previous approach of paying young blokes and their families top dollar from age 14 to 18 seems like madness in hindsight. Manly had to get more professional. Good money after bad.

Especially when we don’t have brown paper bags and third party dodgy deals to compensate for these errors.

 

[Nordburg]

Not sure if this has been mentioned before,but I suspect Schusters payout each year,is offset in the cap by DCE,Jake and Tom’s Veteran&Development Player Allowance.So on the surface,without knowing the ins and outs,I suspect Manly will still be working with a full cap to play with

 

[LeonardCohen]

If I was Josh I'd say a deals a deal - pay up matey.

That’s ironic because his end of the deal is to get fit and play to a professional standard, matey.

 

[Peter C]

If Schuster gets better and plays for another club in the future and gets paid a decent contract would this offset the debt on our future salary cap??

Nope, the money agreed will still have to be paid,and will still be included in our cap

 

[Lyonstomenzies]

I actually hope he gets to a club where he can get himself right mentally and physically.

I wouldn’t be the slightest bit upset if he played for a rival club against us, and had a blinder.

It would mean this young kid would be reaching his potential and getting rid of his demons.

It’s only football

 

[Will on the hill]

Not sure if this has been mentioned before,but I suspect Schusters payout each year,is offset in the cap by DCE,Jake and Tom’s Veteran&Development Player Allowance.So on the surface,without knowing the ins and outs,I suspect Manly will still be working with a full cap to play with

Is there a club that doesn't have at least 1 player on $300k+ that qualifies for the Vet/Dev allowance? Pretty sure every club would be claiming the maximum so it's not really an advantage for anyone.

 

[AlxFromNthNarra]

Haven't posted for a bit - lots on with a move back to AU on the cards - but this topic has drawn me out of the shadows finally for 2024. You get one long post from me for now

====================================================

TLDR summary:
I am actually seeing positives out of this whole Schuster saga that extend to an overall club-management perspective, and it suggests that the club is being managed well.

Whilst it's regrettable losing a player with the calibre of potential Josh has in the short-term, the call is one which is balanced between many factors including Player sentiment, performance, business-mindedness, media-awareness & optics, and fostering the right system/culture at Manly.

In the longer term it may very well bite us if Josh can reach that potential - and I sincerely hope he does even if it's not at Manly - but for now it seems like the right thing for everyone involved to do, and it is in the handling of the details and publicity around this where things could have come unstuck. To the credit of the club, and the player, it hasn't turned into a shiitshow. And I feel like that is one of the more positive things I have seen at the club for some time.

Read on if you are interested, otherwise hope we smash Parra on Friday! cheers all.

====================================================

The way Manly are going handling this situation suggests they have learned some valuable lessons from some of the bad calls of previous years - here are some considerations:

• Playing Group Impact: Dumping Schuster with no separation arrangement and support would be a pretty harsh look to the other players, like the club was shafting him at a time of potential personal struggle. Yes, he has arguably underperformed on the field and in training but there are arguably mitigating circumstances both on and off-field, and players are trained to be a tight-knit unit. Other players could have started looking over their shoulder if this was a dump-Schuster-and-run - at the very least it could be quite the disruptor right when we are seemingly humming as a unit. I think the path taken is the one that should minimise team disruption.

• Pride Scars: Schuster was part of the Pride-7 - the group-within-the-group that made themselves unavailable due to the jersey saga. Ultimately we didnt win another game in 2022, it killed our season. That debacle was initiated by a move made by the club without the full consideration of their players, and look how that ended. Setting this up as they have shows that consideration process has changed. Hopefully it mitigates the larger risk of a kind of player revolt like in 2022 - especially given the tight-knit 7 also includes star players like 'Mole, Koula, Sipley and Aloiai. These are all players we need fully engaged and firing if we are to compete in 2024, and likely beyond. The players can't say the club hasn't considered the outcomes for Josh in all this rather than just blindly targeting whats best for the club and cutting him loose, and then playing the contract-KPI card to turf him with the least impact on the balance sheet. Some might argue that this takes salary cap out of our kitty and is an unacceptable position to the club as a result - but having a fractured culture in the team because of this isn't going to help in future signings, and arguably it will make us need more $$ than what we lose in this agreement to lure prospective talent, who might see a 'corporate culture' decision shafting one of the boys. And on the plus side, we also get a larger cap to actually go after legit quality players in future seasons, a position on our roster, and hopefully legit prospects to go after, not just outcasts and moneyballers signed for depth.

• Performance Targets: By clearly stating that despite performance targets not being met by Josh, the Manly Club are doing whats right for Josh in the Club's media releases, Manly are hopefully closing off any avenue of Tartak to shiit-can Manly as a club for their treatment of his client, and agitatating for a larger settlement for Josh to offset the contract losses. This could have dragged the club through the mud to get more juice out of the orange for Tartak (& Schuster). Stating this about the clauses in the contract now also shows that Manly always had built-in guard-rails for this deal - and importantly never felt pressured to defend/expose the terms of this deal. This, even when commentary was at its neurotic peak about the fallacy of such a deal for a such an inexperienced prospect. It fills me with great reassurance that Manly didn't just desparately sign Josh on a highly paid no-strings deal on potential alone because they had Fainu-related FOMO, and were shiit-scared of what Tartak could do. Also admirable is that Manly could have exonerated their action publicly with this added detail earlier in relation to the contract terms with Schuster to unlock this lofty salary, but they kept it to themselves and wore any ridicule. Outing the conditions of the contract would have cast a speculative performance-oriented spotlight on Josh - and frankly individual contract specifics are none of the Media's bloody business anyway. Manly protected their player, and wore the heat of the commentary criticising their 'desperate offer' to retain Schuster - which as it ends up wasn't really as desperate after all. Yes it was a huge amount to throw at a 22yo, but if he reached the heights he has the potential to reach it probably would have been worth it when compared to equally paid footballers available on the market. Of course the bonus points in all this are that (1) Tartak will come across as the greedy POS he actually is if he goes after Manly on the contractuals, given how accommodating and supportive Manly are looking to be on this with Josh for what is effectively a breach of contract terms. And (2) Manly get to ride out of this like Jerry Macguire, with player interests put at the head of all the contractual considerations, even when questions from commentators are flying around deriding the operations and decisions of the club. Manly protected the conditions of Josh's deal even when it may have been reputationally expedient not to do so - Any prospective player we woud want to sign can look at that with confidence and not be afraid of having any performance-related KPIs fed to the media to offset bad press. This position is defensible to both Fans AND Players. And beside the point - from the perspective of Josh seeking a new contract, how will any prospective employer/club view the scenario of a player and his manager suing a club for not honouring a perforamnce-related contract because the player's performance didn't meet agreed T&Cs? Manly would likely come out squeaky clean on that eventuality as well, But all this Assumes:
• The Tartak litigation risk is DOA: If Tartak goes that path to try and challenge Manly's decision not to terminate the substantially upgraded terms in defence of his client, we as a club have the indisputable contract high-ground. The performance clause that grants the club protection for why the contract can be terminated at all should be legally sound enough to enable the club to shut down any/all avenues Tartak or any others may have in the scenario where he goes in on Manly with any grievance-related motivation. If it's as simple as:
  • Josh breached his performance clause that entitled him to the upgraded and more lucrative contract,
  • and whilst Manly (may) hold the right to therefore terminate the contract and not pay out a cent based off these targets not being met, they are instead taking a softer position of a negotiated severance package.

That paints out the club as caring and welfare-oriented when it comes to their players - which really should have been the conclusion following the Fainu Saga anyway, where the club supported them to their own massive detriment ultimately.

At least they learned enough from that to add conditions to the contract they gave Josh (and more importantly Tartak). This should sit as the best-case-scenario with Fans, and hopefully Players alike - if they agree Josh was given every chance to succeed and earn that coin he was reported to have been offered, then they should get over it pretty fast if the issue was a lack of effort/commitment. Players can judge effort at training for themselves I imagine. And whats the alternative? Carry a guy who is under-performing, but who also happens to be earning more than 80% of the players at the club? We chose the least toxic option here imo, as the alternative was to become like the Bunnies, playing favourites. We can see how corrosive that is to performance - a legit title contending side is now a deadset wooden-spoon prospect. Attitude matters, 2022 taught us that rather harsh lesson.

• Controlling the Messaging: Whilst I don't have the full ins and outs of the contract, the media statements I have read which have been released by Manly are deliberate and measured - it suggests they occupy the high-ground when it comes to any legal position - but regardless of this they are choosing to do the right thing by the player. This is making all the right moves when it comes to Optics and the court of public opinion. Bravo to the club on this front, the decision and messaging has been proactive, decisive and clear. We don't seem to have leaky sieves anymore like Peter Peters, shiitbagging us because Scotty (fulton) doesn't know and needs to go, and this lack of media-leakage is the sign of a healthy club not trying to publicly rip itself a new one coz politics (like Souths now, the Tigers last year, or Broncs during Seibold's tenure) Which means:
• Media Management on the up: Fox & co will struggle to turn this into a viable Manly-bashing exercise, and indeed you can already see it - Newscorp stories on the matter are ill-researched spitballing (just for something different eh?), and commentators are praising the club for the empathetic way they are handling this. Media don't necessarily have the full contract details, even tho that $800k is the widely agreed upon figure Schuster was purportedly on, it's not ever been substantiated as fact, just rumour. And now we learn it was conditional on performance, which is a solid and justifiable strategy to retain talent which has such a performance difference between brilliant best, and disinterested worst. I'm actually really relieved about this, as signing Schuster on 800k out of fear vs incentivising a longer-term deal are completely different scenarios. As a result of failing to find cause to pin Manly to the wall in all this, the NRL journos are forced to resort back to their tried and tested specialty - Coach-Bashing. And as Souths & Parra are currently in the crosshairs, that is bloody well fine by me! Suck it up mfkrs! Get ready for the inevitable 'Club in Crisis' articles after we smash the Eels by 40 on the weekend. We can dream....

• "The Manly Way" actually needs to matter, else its waffle: It might be waffle anyway, but I enjoyed it. The club invested heavily in 'The Manly Way' this year, where it spoke of aspirations for re-capturing the club's glory days, the rich history and fabric of the club, the unity of their playing group, and the 'buy-in' that the players all have to the words etched on the wall: Do your Job. Its' the biggest marketing undertaking to re-brand the club since the Silvertails era. Arguably, it was a massive success! To then go and push a locally-raised talent like Josh out into the cold - even if contractually protected in doing so - would cast a shadow on that messaging of club unity, which could fester into a much larger problem than a few $100k over a season or three. It hurts the cap today sure, but it doesn't tarnish the club-brand we are trying build off the back of that very big PR gamble of tMW. Indeed, it melds quite seamlessly into all that positivity-infused messaging of the series. Josh unfortunately didn't do his job, the writing was literally on the wall in the Manly Way videos. We will win a lot of new fans with these non-hypcrotical actions, aligned with how this has been handled. In addition, as a player looking for a home, it makes Manly a more attractive club to consider beyond the obvious appeal of playing with people like Turbo/DCE, and having the best part of the world to play in. The club has your back, but you're expected to perform to retain that privilege. Should you run into hardship, the club will support you - even in the unlikely and extreme case of contract termination. Wish all my previous employers had been as kind with their departure packages.

• Don't take the (click)bait: Media likes to control the narrative of a club as it gives them relevance and authority. See: Rabbits, Eels (this week..), and Newcastle & Cowboys are probably next off the block for the media crisis engine. Manly has taken away thousands of 'clicks' from Newscorp by cutting this story off with the facts before the conjecture around Schuster metasisized into something hideous online, with tentacles across multiple articles theorising all the worst-case scenarios of litigation and player unrest. There will be some butthurt out there, manifesting as negative articles from the usual suspects. You can spot a tired NRL-journo beat-up easily on this topic nowadays by the structure of their stories: (a) Always refer to Josh's purported contract size (even if that figure is proven to be conditional/fabricated); (b) focus on what he is doing to 'earn' it - playing in Blacktown Workers, poorly at that. Pair that with his inability to get his fitness/weight under control - which is basic NRL-101 to these armchair critics - and it creates a perception of Schuster being both greedy and lazy, in both Contract and Diet. It is a deliberate tactic to evoke a mindset in the average punter of Josh being an overpaid freeloader who is choosing to underperform because he can't issue restraint at the KFC drive-thru, even when 800k is on the line. That must be some Zinger. This is a lightning rod of outrage fixation for the 'mob', which Newscorp likes to arm, point and shoot at a range of targets and targets - in this case Josh, the guy with all the talent but none of the ambition to work hard to earn it, is a particularly easy platform for (negative) reaction. This gives the assurance of clicks - which counts as "Engagement" - if they frame him as an overpaid burger-inhaling bludger who doesn't realise how good he has it, and as a result doesn't deserve his contract. Personally, I would be devastated if people - especially media weasel-wordsmiths who write hit-pieces as a living - made me a target with assumptions about me like that based on the 'vibe' or some other unsubstantiated leak/source, without having all the details of my personal circumstances, contract and situation presented. Worse would be that a large segment of people believe it with no confirmation because it's dressed up as 'news'. I'm sure that for Josh, expressing his mindset on this situation is ANYTHING but simple to define - he is 22 and a basically junior footballer, not 35 and an articulate battle-hardened DCE-level diplomat. No wonder his confidence is shot if he is reading the crap they spew about him.

• We haven't heard from Josh!! Most importantly, we don't fully know all the reasons for Josh's under-performance. It's not just too many drive-thrus, or an inflated sense of entitlement of a starting spot on behalf of Josh. The factors around the Keith tragedy and what went down that day, his family structure and situation, the pressures of expectation linked to delivering on a deal his manager cooked up, the fact he has never known any other system except Manly, his changing physicality as he ages beyond teenage years, his claimed struggles with mental health - none of these can be categorically dismissed unless you are effectively agreeing with the worst forms of hostile media narrative. But taking it even a step further and calling him a liar too when he states his case? Ouch. After seeing him at the Roosters game on my last Aussie visit, one thing was obvious to me - he wasn't happy. And you always hear it about football players - they play well when they enjoy playing the game again. Thats what we keep hearing about Brooks - he's playing like a weight has been taken off his shoulders, and he's playing super good. Josh may just need the same seachange. He needs to introspect about this on his own terms, hopefully with some help/experience - which the club has enabled him to treat with their package rather than sliding him out the back door. He must not be dragged to meet his demons forcibly by others, who selfishly seek to extract his potential for their own ends & gratifications.

We have progressed as a society beyond the 'drink a cup of concrete and harden the fk up' days of old when it comes to Men and acknowledging struggles - I'd like to think that this is a positive thing. Just because Schuster is blessed with talent most of us could never dream to achieve doesn't mean he doesn't struggle with things many of us take for granted. Hopefully he will get the right advice that points him to deal with it in his own way, in his own time. We may learn more soon, or we may never know. That is up to Josh. I only wish him the best regardless of where he ends up, and try to write thoughtfully as though he is also reading what I write - you never know.

The Club have been very good in sheltering him from publicity and media interviewing, and the players have answered questions surrounding him with delicacy. I'd argue that the club has shown a lot of maturity, and a good balance of tolerance/support for Josh combined with the much-needed reality check centered around his ROI to the club. They have done this tactfully and respectfully to ensure further pressure is not applied from Media, constantly seeking controversy content.

The Manly of late is a far cry from ham-fisted circus efforts of Manly's recent past, and whether that's Mestrov or Penn or the board that have enabled this change, I think they deserve some credit for how it has all played out over 2024. It feels like - as a club - we are currently tying up some of those loose ends we have tripped ourselves up on in seasons past, and whilst this situation had the risk of imploding into something fairly ugly, for once the club is not the one dropping the ball.

 

[Ryan]

I think a lot of people forget the salary cap concessions for long term players. We do better than most teams in this department so the $200k imputation on the cap is nothing when we still have a larger cap to spend on than say the bulldogs who have no players longer than 3 years with the club. The veteran cap allowance is $300k for players 8 years or longer with the club in the top 30.

That dispensation is up to XXXXX per club, not player I believe which is so dumb. So I'd you have 3 players, or 8 players , the max based on your figure is $300k for the club

 

[Dion Johnson]

Haven't posted for a bit - lots on with a move back to AU on the cards - but this topic has drawn me out of the shadows finally for 2024. You get one long post from me for now

====================================================

TLDR summary:
I am actually seeing positives out of this whole Schuster saga that extend to an overall club-management perspective, and it suggests that the club is being managed well.

Whilst it's regrettable losing a player with the calibre of potential Josh has in the short-term, the call is one which is balanced between many factors including Player sentiment, performance, business-mindedness, media-awareness & optics, and fostering the right system/culture at Manly.

In the longer term it may very well bite us if Josh can reach that potential - and I sincerely hope he does even if it's not at Manly - but for now it seems like the right thing for everyone involved to do, and it is in the handling of the details and publicity around this where things could have come unstuck. To the credit of the club, and the player, it hasn't turned into a shiitshow. And I feel like that is one of the more positive things I have seen at the club for some time.

Read on if you are interested, otherwise hope we smash Parra on Friday! cheers all.

====================================================

The way Manly are going handling this situation suggests they have learned some valuable lessons from some of the bad calls of previous years - here are some considerations:

• Playing Group Impact: Dumping Schuster with no separation arrangement and support would be a pretty harsh look to the other players, like the club was shafting him at a time of potential personal struggle. Yes, he has arguably underperformed on the field and in training but there are arguably mitigating circumstances both on and off-field, and players are trained to be a tight-knit unit. Other players could have started looking over their shoulder if this was a dump-Schuster-and-run - at the very least it could be quite the disruptor right when we are seemingly humming as a unit. I think the path taken is the one that should minimise team disruption.

• Pride Scars: Schuster was part of the Pride-7 - the group-within-the-group that made themselves unavailable due to the jersey saga. Ultimately we didnt win another game in 2022, it killed our season. That debacle was initiated by a move made by the club without the full consideration of their players, and look how that ended. Setting this up as they have shows that consideration process has changed. Hopefully it mitigates the larger risk of a kind of player revolt like in 2022 - especially given the tight-knit 7 also includes star players like 'Mole, Koula, Sipley and Aloiai. These are all players we need fully engaged and firing if we are to compete in 2024, and likely beyond. The players can't say the club hasn't considered the outcomes for Josh in all this rather than just blindly targeting whats best for the club and cutting him loose, and then playing the contract-KPI card to turf him with the least impact on the balance sheet. Some might argue that this takes salary cap out of our kitty and is an unacceptable position to the club as a result - but having a fractured culture in the team because of this isn't going to help in future signings, and arguably it will make us need more $$ than what we lose in this agreement to lure prospective talent, who might see a 'corporate culture' decision shafting one of the boys. And on the plus side, we also get a larger cap to actually go after legit quality players in future seasons, a position on our roster, and hopefully legit prospects to go after, not just outcasts and moneyballers signed for depth.

• Performance Targets: By clearly stating that despite performance targets not being met by Josh, the Manly Club are doing whats right for Josh in the Club's media releases, Manly are hopefully closing off any avenue of Tartak to shiit-can Manly as a club for their treatment of his client, and agitatating for a larger settlement for Josh to offset the contract losses. This could have dragged the club through the mud to get more juice out of the orange for Tartak (& Schuster). Stating this about the clauses in the contract now also shows that Manly always had built-in guard-rails for this deal - and importantly never felt pressured to defend/expose the terms of this deal. This, even when commentary was at its neurotic peak about the fallacy of such a deal for a such an inexperienced prospect. It fills me with great reassurance that Manly didn't just desparately sign Josh on a highly paid no-strings deal on potential alone because they had Fainu-related FOMO, and were shiit-scared of what Tartak could do. Also admirable is that Manly could have exonerated their action publicly with this added detail earlier in relation to the contract terms with Schuster to unlock this lofty salary, but they kept it to themselves and wore any ridicule. Outing the conditions of the contract would have cast a speculative performance-oriented spotlight on Josh - and frankly individual contract specifics are none of the Media's bloody business anyway. Manly protected their player, and wore the heat of the commentary criticising their 'desperate offer' to retain Schuster - which as it ends up wasn't really as desperate after all. Yes it was a huge amount to throw at a 22yo, but if he reached the heights he has the potential to reach it probably would have been worth it when compared to equally paid footballers available on the market. Of course the bonus points in all this are that (1) Tartak will come across as the greedy POS he actually is if he goes after Manly on the contractuals, given how accommodating and supportive Manly are looking to be on this with Josh for what is effectively a breach of contract terms. And (2) Manly get to ride out of this like Jerry Macguire, with player interests put at the head of all the contractual considerations, even when questions from commentators are flying around deriding the operations and decisions of the club. Manly protected the conditions of Josh's deal even when it may have been reputationally expedient not to do so - Any prospective player we woud want to sign can look at that with confidence and not be afraid of having any performance-related KPIs fed to the media to offset bad press. This position is defensible to both Fans AND Players. And beside the point - from the perspective of Josh seeking a new contract, how will any prospective employer/club view the scenario of a player and his manager suing a club for not honouring a perforamnce-related contract because the player's performance didn't meet agreed T&Cs? Manly would likely come out squeaky clean on that eventuality as well, But all this Assumes:
• The Tartak litigation risk is DOA: If Tartak goes that path to try and challenge Manly's decision not to terminate the substantially upgraded terms in defence of his client, we as a club have the indisputable contract high-ground. The performance clause that grants the club protection for why the contract can be terminated at all should be legally sound enough to enable the club to shut down any/all avenues Tartak or any others may have in the scenario where he goes in on Manly with any grievance-related motivation. If it's as simple as:
  • Josh breached his performance clause that entitled him to the upgraded and more lucrative contract,
  • and whilst Manly (may) hold the right to therefore terminate the contract and not pay out a cent based off these targets not being met, they are instead taking a softer position of a negotiated severance package.

That paints out the club as caring and welfare-oriented when it comes to their players - which really should have been the conclusion following the Fainu Saga anyway, where the club supported them to their own massive detriment ultimately.

At least they learned enough from that to add conditions to the contract they gave Josh (and more importantly Tartak). This should sit as the best-case-scenario with Fans, and hopefully Players alike - if they agree Josh was given every chance to succeed and earn that coin he was reported to have been offered, then they should get over it pretty fast if the issue was a lack of effort/commitment. Players can judge effort at training for themselves I imagine. And whats the alternative? Carry a guy who is under-performing, but who also happens to be earning more than 80% of the players at the club? We chose the least toxic option here imo, as the alternative was to become like the Bunnies, playing favourites. We can see how corrosive that is to performance - a legit title contending side is now a deadset wooden-spoon prospect. Attitude matters, 2022 taught us that rather harsh lesson.

• Controlling the Messaging: Whilst I don't have the full ins and outs of the contract, the media statements I have read which have been released by Manly are deliberate and measured - it suggests they occupy the high-ground when it comes to any legal position - but regardless of this they are choosing to do the right thing by the player. This is making all the right moves when it comes to Optics and the court of public opinion. Bravo to the club on this front, the decision and messaging has been proactive, decisive and clear. We don't seem to have leaky sieves anymore like Peter Peters, shiitbagging us because Scotty (fulton) doesn't know and needs to go, and this lack of media-leakage is the sign of a healthy club not trying to publicly rip itself a new one coz politics (like Souths now, the Tigers last year, or Broncs during Seibold's tenure) Which means:
• Media Management on the up: Fox & co will struggle to turn this into a viable Manly-bashing exercise, and indeed you can already see it - Newscorp stories on the matter are ill-researched spitballing (just for something different eh?), and commentators are praising the club for the empathetic way they are handling this. Media don't necessarily have the full contract details, even tho that $800k is the widely agreed upon figure Schuster was purportedly on, it's not ever been substantiated as fact, just rumour. And now we learn it was conditional on performance, which is a solid and justifiable strategy to retain talent which has such a performance difference between brilliant best, and disinterested worst. I'm actually really relieved about this, as signing Schuster on 800k out of fear vs incentivising a longer-term deal are completely different scenarios. As a result of failing to find cause to pin Manly to the wall in all this, the NRL journos are forced to resort back to their tried and tested specialty - Coach-Bashing. And as Souths & Parra are currently in the crosshairs, that is bloody well fine by me! Suck it up mfkrs! Get ready for the inevitable 'Club in Crisis' articles after we smash the Eels by 40 on the weekend. We can dream....

• "The Manly Way" actually needs to matter, else its waffle: It might be waffle anyway, but I enjoyed it. The club invested heavily in 'The Manly Way' this year, where it spoke of aspirations for re-capturing the club's glory days, the rich history and fabric of the club, the unity of their playing group, and the 'buy-in' that the players all have to the words etched on the wall: Do your Job. Its' the biggest marketing undertaking to re-brand the club since the Silvertails era. Arguably, it was a massive success! To then go and push a locally-raised talent like Josh out into the cold - even if contractually protected in doing so - would cast a shadow on that messaging of club unity, which could fester into a much larger problem than a few $100k over a season or three. It hurts the cap today sure, but it doesn't tarnish the club-brand we are trying build off the back of that very big PR gamble of tMW. Indeed, it melds quite seamlessly into all that positivity-infused messaging of the series. Josh unfortunately didn't do his job, the writing was literally on the wall in the Manly Way videos. We will win a lot of new fans with these non-hypcrotical actions, aligned with how this has been handled. In addition, as a player looking for a home, it makes Manly a more attractive club to consider beyond the obvious appeal of playing with people like Turbo/DCE, and having the best part of the world to play in. The club has your back, but you're expected to perform to retain that privilege. Should you run into hardship, the club will support you - even in the unlikely and extreme case of contract termination. Wish all my previous employers had been as kind with their departure packages.

• Don't take the (click)bait: Media likes to control the narrative of a club as it gives them relevance and authority. See: Rabbits, Eels (this week..), and Newcastle & Cowboys are probably next off the block for the media crisis engine. Manly has taken away thousands of 'clicks' from Newscorp by cutting this story off with the facts before the conjecture around Schuster metasisized into something hideous online, with tentacles across multiple articles theorising all the worst-case scenarios of litigation and player unrest. There will be some butthurt out there, manifesting as negative articles from the usual suspects. You can spot a tired NRL-journo beat-up easily on this topic nowadays by the structure of their stories: (a) Always refer to Josh's purported contract size (even if that figure is proven to be conditional/fabricated); (b) focus on what he is doing to 'earn' it - playing in Blacktown Workers, poorly at that. Pair that with his inability to get his fitness/weight under control - which is basic NRL-101 to these armchair critics - and it creates a perception of Schuster being both greedy and lazy, in both Contract and Diet. It is a deliberate tactic to evoke a mindset in the average punter of Josh being an overpaid freeloader who is choosing to underperform because he can't issue restraint at the KFC drive-thru, even when 800k is on the line. That must be some Zinger. This is a lightning rod of outrage fixation for the 'mob', which Newscorp likes to arm, point and shoot at a range of targets and targets - in this case Josh, the guy with all the talent but none of the ambition to work hard to earn it, is a particularly easy platform for (negative) reaction. This gives the assurance of clicks - which counts as "Engagement" - if they frame him as an overpaid burger-inhaling bludger who doesn't realise how good he has it, and as a result doesn't deserve his contract. Personally, I would be devastated if people - especially media weasel-wordsmiths who write hit-pieces as a living - made me a target with assumptions about me like that based on the 'vibe' or some other unsubstantiated leak/source, without having all the details of my personal circumstances, contract and situation presented. Worse would be that a large segment of people believe it with no confirmation because it's dressed up as 'news'. I'm sure that for Josh, expressing his mindset on this situation is ANYTHING but simple to define - he is 22 and a basically junior footballer, not 35 and an articulate battle-hardened DCE-level diplomat. No wonder his confidence is shot if he is reading the crap they spew about him.

• We haven't heard from Josh!! Most importantly, we don't fully know all the reasons for Josh's under-performance. It's not just too many drive-thrus, or an inflated sense of entitlement of a starting spot on behalf of Josh. The factors around the Keith tragedy and what went down that day, his family structure and situation, the pressures of expectation linked to delivering on a deal his manager cooked up, the fact he has never known any other system except Manly, his changing physicality as he ages beyond teenage years, his claimed struggles with mental health - none of these can be categorically dismissed unless you are effectively agreeing with the worst forms of hostile media narrative. But taking it even a step further and calling him a liar too when he states his case? Ouch. After seeing him at the Roosters game on my last Aussie visit, one thing was obvious to me - he wasn't happy. And you always hear it about football players - they play well when they enjoy playing the game again. Thats what we keep hearing about Brooks - he's playing like a weight has been taken off his shoulders, and he's playing super good. Josh may just need the same seachange. He needs to introspect about this on his own terms, hopefully with some help/experience - which the club has enabled him to treat with their package rather than sliding him out the back door. He must not be dragged to meet his demons forcibly by others, who selfishly seek to extract his potential for their own ends & gratifications.

We have progressed as a society beyond the 'drink a cup of concrete and harden the fk up' days of old when it comes to Men and acknowledging struggles - I'd like to think that this is a positive thing. Just because Schuster is blessed with talent most of us could never dream to achieve doesn't mean he doesn't struggle with things many of us take for granted. Hopefully he will get the right advice that points him to deal with it in his own way, in his own time. We may learn more soon, or we may never know. That is up to Josh. I only wish him the best regardless of where he ends up, and try to write thoughtfully as though he is also reading what I write - you never know.

The Club have been very good in sheltering him from publicity and media interviewing, and the players have answered questions surrounding him with delicacy. I'd argue that the club has shown a lot of maturity, and a good balance of tolerance/support for Josh combined with the much-needed reality check centered around his ROI to the club. They have done this tactfully and respectfully to ensure further pressure is not applied from Media, constantly seeking controversy content.

The Manly of late is a far cry from ham-fisted circus efforts of Manly's recent past, and whether that's Mestrov or Penn or the board that have enabled this change, I think they deserve some credit for how it has all played out over 2024. It feels like - as a club - we are currently tying up some of those loose ends we have tripped ourselves up on in seasons past, and whilst this situation had the risk of imploding into something fairly ugly, for once the club is not the one dropping the ball.

Great read, big effort from yourself putting it together..

 

[Stewbojevic]

Question, if another club signs Josh for $200k per year, does that take the value off our books?

 

[Dion Johnson]

Question, if another club signs Josh for $200k per year, does that take the value off our books?

My understanding of what has been written is no, it’s a pay out of his services, if anyone picks him up he gets that remuneration value also.