Leinster Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread II

jm08 · 11-07-2012 5:06pm

thomond2006 wrote: »

eh?

IRFU offered Luke a central contract at €200K a year. His previous one was at €280K. He (more likely his agent) was holding out for a better offer and then the IRFU just withdrew the offer.

Teferi · 11-07-2012 5:09pm

jm08 wrote: »

IRFU offered Luke a central contract at €200K a year. His previous one was at €280K. He (more likely his agent) was holding out for a better offer and then the IRFU just withdrew the offer.

I believe Thomonds point was that Luke wasn't holding them hostage.

Podge_irl · 11-07-2012 5:09pm

I don't think not wanting to accept an €80,000 reduction in pay can be classified as being excessively greedy.

Cpt_Blackbeard · 11-07-2012 5:10pm

Teferi wrote: »

Standard.

I'd be of the same opinion regardless of the player. He (His agent) was being greedy and unwilling to take a wages drop. Considering how he hadn't been a consistent international, a wage drop was completely fair. Players like DOC and Leamy took a hit in order to retain a central contract, but Luke - a player not involved with the international side for a year - was unwilling to do so.

Luke is the unlucky one to feel the pinch, but its a strong message that the IRFU needed to send out. It should reduce cases like Heaslip and ROG where the players were playing with the IRFU in order to get a handful of more cash.

Cpt_Blackbeard · 11-07-2012 5:13pm

Podge_irl wrote: »

I don't think not wanting to accept an €80,000 reduction in pay can be classified as being excessively greedy.

For a player who wasn't involved internationally for some time, it is (not excessively though). Most (maybe all) other players to have recently signed a new central deal, have all taken a reported hit in the pocket. Luke wasn't in a strong negotiating position and has now payed for it. Instead of losing €80k a year, he could well be losing €120k.

Teferi · 11-07-2012 5:17pm

Podge_irl wrote: »

I don't think not wanting to accept an €80,000 reduction in pay can be classified as being excessively greedy.

I'm sure the Captain would only be delighted to take a 28% pay cut.

Podge_irl · 11-07-2012 5:17pm

I don't think we know enough about the contracts to say one way or the other. I think he was being somewhat unrealistic but there is more to these contracts then a pure figure.

I imagine the one year deal is beneficial to both Luke and Leinster. If Luke comes back strongly he can renegotiate for a better long term deal and if he doesn't recover from injury well Leinster aren't left with an injured player on a long term deal.

molloyjh · 11-07-2012 5:20pm

dtpc191991 wrote: »

I'm not to happy with this. I was really hoping Madigan would be nailed as replacement OH and that he would get his chance with Ireland this year.

I reckon Madigan will be first choice for most of the season, i.e. when Johnny isn't about. Goodman seems to be an inside centre from what I can make out anyway, but is being pedalled as a utility back. So he's really just going to fill in where needed from the looks of it.

CatFromHue wrote: »

The fact that he's 29 and is on a one year contract with an option for another would suggest he's not here for the long term.

In November
2-4 Ospreys v Leinster
10 Ire v SA
17 Ire A v Fiji
24 Ire v Arg
23-25 Nov Glasgow v Leinster
30 Nov - 2 Dec Leinster v Zebre
7-9 Dec HEC

So for the Ospreys, Glasgow and Zebre game we will be missing in the backs, Sexton, BOD, D'arcy, Fitzgerald, and Kearney. We will more than likely also be missing EOM and McFadden.

The Tasman Makos last game is on the 13 Oct so he should be here for the Ospreys game I'd hope.

Yeah it looks like he'll be cover for the international windows all right. Let's just hope we don't suffer the numerous injuries at the start of this season like we did last...with our injuries and internationals we'd have something like this for the start of the season maybe?

1. HVdM/McGrath
2. Strauss/Dundon/Sexton (Strauss could well be called into the international set-up from the start of the season)
3. Hagan/Bent/Moore
4. Cullen/Browne/Denton
5. Toner/Flanagan
6. Locky/Ruddock (Locky could be included in the international set-up too depending on Fez)
7. Jenno/Ryan/Murphy
8. Auva'a/Coughlan

9. Boss/Cooney
10. Madigan/Reid
11. Carr
12. Goodman/O'Shea
13. Macken
14. Conway/Hudson
15. Nacewa

Coughlan-Murray might get a look in there too given how light we are in the back line. Any injuries there and we could have some serious trouble.

Cpt_Blackbeard · 11-07-2012 5:23pm

Teferi wrote: »

I'm sure the Captain would only be delighted to take a 28% pay cut.

Well if I was half the player I was (from Lion to just a club player) when I signed on for €280k, I'd hope that I was realistic enough to see that I was still getting a good deal. Or I'd at least hope that the person who I pay to manage my affairs - my agent - would realise that.

emmet02 · 11-07-2012 5:32pm

Cpt_Blackbeard wrote: »

I'd be of the same opinion regardless of the player. He (His agent) was being greedy and unwilling to take a wages drop. Considering how he hadn't been a consistent international, a wage drop was completely fair. Players like DOC and Leamy took a hit in order to retain a central contract, but Luke - a player not involved with the international side for a year - was unwilling to do so.

Luke is the unlucky one to feel the pinch, but its a strong message that the IRFU needed to send out. It should reduce cases like Heaslip and ROG where the players were playing with the IRFU in order to get a handful of more cash.

citation needed

Cpt_Blackbeard · 11-07-2012 5:49pm

emmet02 wrote: »

citation needed

Nothing other than reputable posters saying it on forums. Its an argument that makes sense though. Do you think Luke was the only player to be offered a pay cut?

.ak · 11-07-2012 5:54pm

We only know how much Luke was offered due to a leak - no one is aware of other central contracted players salaries, or how much of a percentage cut they took, if any, so your argument is moot.

Quint2010 · 11-07-2012 5:56pm

molloyjh wrote: »

I reckon Madigan will be first choice for most of the season, i.e. when Johnny isn't about. Goodman seems to be an inside centre from what I can make out anyway, but is being pedalled as a utility back. So he's really just going to fill in where needed from the looks of it.

Yeah it looks like he'll be cover for the international windows all right. Let's just hope we don't suffer the numerous injuries at the start of this season like we did last...with our injuries and internationals we'd have something like this for the start of the season maybe?

1. HVdM/McGrath
2. Strauss/Dundon/Sexton (Strauss could well be called into the international set-up from the start of the season)
3. Hagan/Bent/Moore
4. Cullen/Browne/Denton
5. Toner/Flanagan
6. Locky/Ruddock (Locky could be included in the international set-up too depending on Fez)
7. Jenno/Ryan/Murphy
8. Auva'a/Coughlan

9. Boss/Cooney
10. Madigan/Reid
11. Carr
12. Goodman/O'Shea
13. Macken
14. Conway/Hudson
15. Nacewa

Coughlan-Murray might get a look in there too given how light we are in the back line. Any injuries there and we could have some serious trouble.

Jordan Coughlan? No chance. Not physically developed enough for first team. Anyway-I reckon Jack Conan is ahead of him as an 8.

.ak · 11-07-2012 5:57pm

Actually it was mentioned earlier who, if any, would make it from the U20s team onto the senior team first. My nomination would've been Conan - he's physically just as big as Heaslip iirc.

emmet02 · 11-07-2012 6:03pm

Cpt_Blackbeard wrote: »

Nothing other than reputable posters saying it on forums. Its an argument that makes sense though. Do you think Luke was the only player to be offered a pay cut?

No idea, I imagine my idea of reputable posters may differ from yours.

I personally didn't want Luke to get a central contract, I pretty much hate the system as it's essentially been abused by coaches and agents in recent years.

However, I think that emotive words like ransom, greed and you being "happy" is pretty much ridiculous considering you have literally no knowledge of what DOC or Leamy were offered and accepted. Never mind the comparison of Fitz's situation to two aging players not playing first choice at their provinces accepting contracts that they should never have been offered, regardless of what the monetary figure was.

Quint2010 · 11-07-2012 6:17pm

.ak wrote: »

Actually it was mentioned earlier who, if any, would make it from the U20s team onto the senior team first. My nomination would've been Conan - he's physically just as big as Heaslip iirc.

Gilsenan and Conan will both make it in my opinon. So will Tadhg Furlong and Luke McGrath (although his passing needs to improve). Coughlan may do aswell-he certainly has pace and is an excellent footballer.

.ak · 11-07-2012 6:24pm

Quint2010 wrote: »

Gilsenan and Conan will both make it in my opinon. So will Tadhg Furlong and Luke McGrath (although his passing needs to improve). Coughlan may do aswell-he certainly has pace and is an excellent footballer.

Gilly was my favourite player in last season's A team, but I think he's a fair bit of bulking up to do. He's extremely passionate about the sport and will go far. I just think Jordi will be ahead of him for some time.

I hope McGrath is eased into the side - I'd much rather see more of Cooney this season and perhaps McGrath the next.

jm08 · 11-07-2012 6:25pm

emmet02 wrote: »

No idea, I imagine my idea of reputable posters may differ from yours.

I personally didn't want Luke to get a central contract, I pretty much hate the system as it's essentially been abused by coaches and agents in recent years.

However, I think that emotive words like ransom, greed and you being "happy" is pretty much ridiculous considering you have literally no knowledge of what DOC or Leamy were offered and accepted. Never mind the comparison of Fitz's situation to two aging players not playing first choice at their provinces accepting contracts that they should never have been offered, regardless of what the monetary figure was.

I seem to remember reading somewhere (could have been around the time POC got his new contract) that everyone took a paycut.

I think Luke should change his agent - Drury seems to rub the IRFU up the wrong way and I'm sure they don't appreciate the way he runs to the press to put pressure on.

Glad Luke is fixed for the year anyway which gives him a chance to get back on his feet again.

Bet Leinster are mad though to have to cover the cost of his contract!

emmet02 · 11-07-2012 6:29pm

jm08 wrote: »

I seem to remember reading somewhere (could have been around the time POC got his new contract) that everyone took a paycut.

I remember reading somewhere that X happened too. Doesn't make it any more or less true.

My point was that there are very few people who know the differences in the contracts offered to the players Cpt championed for taking pay cuts, and the "greedy ransomer" Luke Fitzgerald is said to be.

And the good Captain is certainly not one of them.

GerM · 11-07-2012 6:32pm

Podge_irl wrote: »

I imagine the one year deal is beneficial to both Luke and Leinster. If Luke comes back strongly he can renegotiate for a better long term deal and if he doesn't recover from injury well Leinster aren't left with an injured player on a long term deal.

Bingo. It's a win/win situation. Leinster have aren't tied into anything long term and Fitz has opted to back himself. He'll only have 4 months really to put down a marker from January onwards. If he does, fantastic. If he doesn't, then Leinster can reassess.

Regardless, for someone to be asked to take a 28% pay cut a a time when they've been performing well in their job is something that none of us would be open to and saying otherwise is pointless. A wage drop is one thing and one which I would have said was fair given the circumstances, having almost a third of your salary slashed is quite another.

leftleg · 11-07-2012 7:09pm

Cpt_Blackbeard wrote: »

emmet02 wrote: »

citation needed

Nothing other than reputable posters saying it on forums. Its an argument that makes sense though. Do you think Luke was the only player to be offered a pay cut?

Careful now you wouldn't want to come across as ignorant

jm08 · 11-07-2012 7:13pm

emmet02 wrote: »

I remember reading somewhere that X happened too. Doesn't make it any more or less true.

My point was that there are very few people who know the differences in the contracts offered to the players Cpt championed for taking pay cuts, and the "greedy ransomer" Luke Fitzgerald is said to be.

And the good Captain is certainly not one of them.

From what I recall, it seemed that there was a change in the structure as to how the contracts were given, as in now there is a low basic with bonus payments/incentives for getting selected for tours/training squads, making the 22 and being starter along with the reduction of total no. of contracts given out.

Considering Luke's injury woes, that wasn't going to be an attractive proposition for him.

I'd also like to point out that Ireland is a small place and everyone knows everyone elses business!

emmet02 · 11-07-2012 7:14pm

jm08 wrote: »

From what I recall, it seemed that there was a change in the structure as to how the contracts were given, as in now there is a low basic with bonus payments/incentives for getting selected for tours/training squads, making the 22 and being starter along with the reduction of total no. of contracts given out.

Considering Luke's injury woes, that wasn't going to be an attractive proposition for him.

I'd also like to point out that Ireland is a small place and everyone knows everyone elses business!

again, you're simply using hearsay. garbled hearsay at that.

jm08 · 11-07-2012 7:21pm

emmet02 wrote: »

again, you're simply using hearsay. garbled hearsay at that.

This is hardly the High Court (or maybe it is?)

emmet02 · 11-07-2012 7:27pm

jm08 wrote: »

This is hardly the High Court (or maybe it is?)

I think we've locked horns over how logic works before. You'll forgive me if I simply don't bother replying to this beyond saying that it's absolutely ridiculous to form an idea of someone as a "greedy randsomer" compared to two other players that you've heralded for their contract decisions based on hearsay.

I use facts to form opinions. I don't use what X has said about Y. The logic behind that is pretty sound in my opinion.

danthefan · 11-07-2012 7:35pm

I heard good Munster folk like Leamy and DOC begged for a paycut. That's just the type of guys they are.

Or, in the real world, I'd imagine their agents did absolutely everything they could to ensure they stayed on as high a salary as possible (which, just in case, I of course have absolutely no problem with whatsoever), their negotiations just stayed private.

jm08 · 11-07-2012 7:38pm

emmet02 wrote: »

I think we've locked horns over how logic works before. You'll forgive me if I simply don't bother replying to this beyond saying that it's absolutely ridiculous to form an idea of someone as a "greedy randsomer" compared to two other players that you've heralded for their contract decisions based on hearsay.

I use facts to form opinions. I don't use what X has said about Y. The logic behind that is pretty sound in my opinion.

Your basing your views on hearsay as much as I am.

And for the record, I never referred to Luke as a 'greedy ransomer', or heralded anyone for their contract decisions. I think Luke was badly advised considering the economic climate. Claiming that no one would accept a 28-30% paycut comes from the Sean Fitzpatrick/Fingleton school of privilege. Lots of people who were on 280K a year have taken 50-60% paycuts in the real world.

emmet02 · 11-07-2012 7:44pm

jm08 wrote: »

Your basing your views on hearsay as much as I am.

And for the record, I never referred to Luke as a 'greedy ransomer', or heralded anyone for their contract decisions. I think Luke was badly advised considering the economic climate. Claiming that no one would accept a 28-30% paycut comes from the Sean Fitzpatrick/Fingleton school of privilege. Lots of people who were on 280K a year have taken 50-60% paycuts in the real world.

what?

jm08 · 11-07-2012 8:07pm

emmet02 wrote: »

what?

Most of the reports (which you seem to accept as true) would have had 'reputed to be on 280K' or "reported to be an €80K pay cut" (Irish Times had it as a €65K paycut).

All hearsay ...

emmet02 · 11-07-2012 8:17pm

jm08 wrote: »

Most of the reports (which you seem to accept as true) would have had 'reputed to be on 280K' or "reported to be an €80K pay cut" (Irish Times had it as a €65K paycut).

All hearsay ...

what?

perhaps try reading my posts again. Find me where I posted any of that.

Again, my point was that calling a player greedy or saying that they held the IRFU ransom based on what you've just called hearsay (though print media is usually quite careful about this) whilst championing someone else based on hearsay (which the DOC/Leamy situation most clearly is) is ridiculous.

Again you've missed the boat. Again I've been drawn into this ridiculous back and forth nonsense that you seem to love. Again I have ignored my own advice, and again I will read my sig, take a deep breath and bid you adieu.

Leinster Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread II

Comments