This one is a double-edge sword and I really don't know the answer, but it is worth asking the question anyway.

Do players having longer contracts than a couple of years draw them into the comfort zone, or does it give peace of mind that they can get on with the job in hand?

I'm pretty sure people will come on and cite the examples of Monaghan and King, but to get a player to uproot from the other side of the world for a couple of years, especially established NRL players isn't going to happen.

Depends on the players character rather than the duration of the contract. A good professional is going to be a good professional whether he's on a 1 year or 5 year deal.

Lots of overseas players come over on 1 or 2 year deals, I would say 2 years is the most common contract.

I would be wary of signing up a player on a long term deal who we have signed from a club which is bigger/more successful than ourselves. That type of player might be looking for comfort and security rather than climbing the career ladder.

Agents know when a player has to 'cash in' on his reputation being at its peak. When a player has had some success with a big club, and is told they won't get a new deal, their reputation is at the highest point it will ever be so they can ask for good wages - this is the time to get a long term deal because it will be the most important contract they ever sign in their careers in terms of financial security. We have a lot of these players.

I think as Sally says, if a player is professional and committed enough, then the length of the contract should be pretty irrelevent.

My main gripe with the Salary cap system is that it seems to have eliminated the 'bonus' system in a player's contract....I firmly believe that there are a few players who would certainly buck their ideas up if their lucrative salaries weren't already guaranteed.

i wonder how many overseas players would come for the old system of win/ loss wages,


1000 for a win 50 for a loss!

Two points, one, players would go for salaries that are more guaranteed than those with bonuses. That is common in football (was mentioned in an interview with david james i believe when asked about bonuses).

And secondly, i didn't think we liked mercenaries playing for the club?

Prior to the start of the season I thought the situation of having a lot of players playing for contracts this season would have helped improve player performance. Clearly not.
Having thought about it a fair bit over the last 4 weeks I have come to the conclusion that players are playing for themselves. If you are playing for your future income you might be more inclined to go for the glory play, (See the Lee Penny school of 2 on one attack).
I know that in theory they shouldnt but is it in the back of a players mind that they need to shine sometimes at the detriment of the team?

I don't quite see what is mercenary about it??...



The way I see it, there are 2 possible scenarios...

1. For example, Matt King gets paid £100k a year guaranteed, whether the club finishes 1st, 7th or 14th.

Or,

2. Matt King gets £50k a year guaranteed, and a further £50k in bonuses depending on the team's performances on he pitch...(Make up your own qualifying scheme)

I think example 1 makes him a mercenary, you seem to think number 2 does??

No my point is, there is no chance a player would choose the second option as the first is guaranteed where as the second one, they could end up with o nly half. Surely that makes sense?

My second point was entirely separate point that refers to the fact surely we do not want people coming to the club to top up their pension and not care about the club.

So that just about takes into account the majoirty of the population, or should professional sportsmen only play for the teams they love and for the game, in the same way that we all go to work beacuase we love our companies and the business we are in?

I don't think being a professional sportsman with the potential adulation of the paying public, the hero-worship of the local youngsters and the possibility of glory when winning trophies is the same as working on the till in Asda.

It's all relative though Mark. We can't expect players to play for their home town club for less money all the time. I mean who would want to play for us?

And that's why they do it is it? If Aldi paid them more they'd go there.

That's true. Jamie Lyon signed for St Helens on a 2 year contract, knowing all the while that he had a confirmed offer from Manly waiting for him when his Paramatta contract expired and he was allowed back into the NRL. He could have come over and hidden like Monaghan or holidayed like King, but he was arguably the most enthusiastic and determined overseas player I've seen at Saints.

That's true, but I think in most people's cases, if they performed as badly in their jobs as most of the Wire team presently are, they would probably be sacked by now for gross incompetence!!

Sports teams are a totally different kettle of fish, simply because they are getting the rare opportunity to do a job they actually love, and indeed a job that's rewards include the possible adulation of thousands....Comparing them with Joe Public doing something mundane like delivering the mail, or driving the bus is an insult to all supporters who pay their wages.

but is that because he knew he'd only be playing in the hole for 2 years whereas monas is here for 4. I also fail to see how anyone can call Warrington a holiday!!

I would sincerely hope not. Let me get this right; you are saying professional sportsmen do it purely for the money?

That would only work if it was only him playing badly, it isnt!

Its the whole team!

Hes playing badly cous others are.

...I've often thought this....Imagine the horror King must have felt when he first arrived in Warrington....'4 years in this dump!!'...



The problem is, in the most part, these guys sign the contracts without even visiting the places they are going to be moving to, and let's face it, the north of England, especially at this time of year, must be a massive culture shock to even the most hardened Aussie.

Without seeming to defend them, its easy to see why many Aussies get homesick....

A lot of this comes down to personal pride.

In all walks of life there are those with an immense amount of pride in what they do, and others who saunter along getting away with as much as they can.

I used to work with two drivers who would both leave the depot at 8am with 40-50 deliveries each. Neither round was more or less difficult than the other, yet every day driver A was back mid afternoon and helped out in the warehouse until hometime. Driver B would trundle in at hometime (give or take 5 minutes). Driver A's appearance and van were always immaculate inside and out, Driver B was constantly being reminded to wash his van and clear out all the old crisp packets and coke cans and he looked a mess.

No doubt RL players are no different. Some will put everything into every training session, every play of every match, regardless of who they are playing for or against. Others wont.

Were Driver A & B on the same pay??....



Seriously, there could be some at Wire looking at others and thinking 'He's on twice what I'm on, and he's awful...why should I bother??'...

Same basic, but guess who was top of the list when overtime came up?

[size=75[Answer - it was me![/size

Who was it at Hull KR who has just signed a new deal? Was it Newton?

How long was his contract when he first signed for them?

Yeah, right on both counts.

I was just wondering because it seems he's come over and earned his new deal, although it's always better to plan for the long term, he's come over on a short(ish) deal, played very well and earned his new deal which will tie him down for how long, three more years, was it?

Just going off Sally's post on the first page, Newton came over with a fairly low reputation, when compared to his former teammate King anyway, and he's come over to a club with big ambitions, and quite obviously matched their ambitions and earned himself a new deal. It's always hard to tell with these things, but a lot of people say if we're going overseas, we should sign players like Dobson, at a good age with a low reputation; players just looking to play footy (sounds so Aussie, for some reason). This seems to be something we're getting wrong quite often, we've signed players like Hicks, who have come over, impressed and although he's old, he could be on track to earn a new deal. But then we've signed players like King, Mona's and Vinnie Anderson, it might just be me, but they've not impressed half as much as I was expecting them to do, whereas Hicks has in a way, over-impressed.

I know big names get the crowds in, but I'd like to think if we had a well-managed, hard working side with ambitions to match the club, then we'd have a side competing for honours, which I feel would bring in bigger crowds.

For me, although it's harder to plan long-term, it's better to give players shorter contracts, and make them earn extensions. Keep them on their toes, then once you know that they have the commitment, give them a longer deal, like Westwood, it just seems that with players like King, Monaghan and Vanderson, who all signed for 3 years+ (I think so anyway), that they're happy earning their salary and aren't matching that on the field.

Are you saying that the vast majority of the population work purely for the money?