Following on from here
New Munster chat thread folks. warning deserved there. https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=109477571#post109477571
Possibly, yeah? I'd say the likelihood was they only offered Ryan an extension through to the end of the season.
It's only a 6 month deal in NZ though - he's going as injury cover following Angus Ta'avao's severe neck injury. I can't imagine the money on offer in NZ is outrageous either.
Archer is munsters second highest capped player ever, only 16 games behind Donnacha O Callaghan.....
i think you can take it thats hes highly regarded within the munster set up.
at 34 hes still relatively fresh for a prop, so its highly likely he will become Munsters highest capped player ever. (Donnacha was 36 leaving to worcester!)
The only thing about that is that JVG didn’t agree with you. If I remember correctly, Archer was being selected ahead of Ryan at that point in time. So maybe it was JVG’s choice to keep Archer, who he believed was the better option.
Yeah, grand, if's that's what it was, then fine. But, that's back to my original point. Munster have bungled this. If that was JvG (and whoever his bosses were) who bungled it, then fine. But they were still Munster at the time when they bungled it.
Cheers for sharing that. When I read off field struggles, i immediately thought legal trouble or family health problems. Glad it's more "normal" settling at a new club in a new country type of stuff. Plus the tsunami which must have been very stressful. I have a vague memory of him being quite open about some mental health problems when he was still playing in NZ. Can't remember what exactly. But sounds like he is in a decent headspace now.
yeah had had some anger issues back with the highlanders afair
Think you're right. Couldn't remember if it was depression or anger but anger does ring a bell. He spoke quite openly about it which was impressive. And not normal for kiwi men.
The issue I have is that you take both sides of the argument, whether saving or spending money (or even taking in money), and use it as criticism.
You didn't even know Munster didn't pay a cent for DDA an Snyman til I pointed it out to you. So it's hard to take your comments on Munster's allocation of resources seriously, tbh.
While I have no time for JVG (did I mention that before?), it's hard to believe that he was picking his props against the advice of a former international and Lions prop...
Of course I knew about the outside financing for DDA & Snyman, it was widely known at the time. My point with it though is that money is fungible - it can be used presumably for a wide variety of things. Or is it the case that the 1014 Group will only sign the big money glamour signings?
Rather than looking at the various points above, I would lump them into one category and say generally that Munster have mismanaged their squad in this regard and the finances around it.
I doubt John Ryan was looking for a king's ransom either; he was a 33 year old prop on a provincial contract. The difference between whatever they're paying James French (probably somewhere around €40k-€60k pa) would have surely helped bridge the gap if they'd chosen to retain Ryan over Archer?
They seem to have the money to fund additional depth in other parts of their squad (where they're carrying guys who they don't use even in emergency style situations) but yet have made poor decisions around retaining front row players in recent years, with John Ryan and James Cronin being the two examples that would spring to mind.
Do you think they've made good decisions with how they've handled the John Ryan situation from the end of 2021 through to now?
So they are paying Ryan for 3 months, and tried to extend his deal until end of season but didn't have the money to keep Ryan over Archer a year ago.
So they have paid out either way what it would have cost to keep Ryan
Defo been some wrong decisions made here
I’m fairly sure Ryan was looking for a 2 or 3 year deal on decent money, being called into Irish camp for competitions.
Archer probably got a one year extension on moderate money.
Also, during the last season or two, Archer was often selected ahead of Ryan, so maybe they just want to keep one and thought Archer was the better player. At least maybe Archer fitted a certain type of prop, and the other three Knox, Salanoa and French were slightly different types of prop. No harm to have a few different types of prop depending on the opposition.
How do you know this? I'd say it's pretty reasonable to assume a prop who's looking for a contract mid-season after his club has gone bust can't command the same wage he would in a normal contract cycle.
I'm pretty sure that the 1014 group are only interested in the big money glamour signings.
Plus they attach strings to the signings too.
The money could probably be spent on different big money signings but not on day to day expenses.
Just to be clear, a 6 months contract sounds like a half-season compared to the URC, but it's actually the whole season of Super Rugby 2023 (Feb 24th to start of July), which is shorter than 6 months really, but a contract for a whole season sounds better than a 6 month contract.
Anyway, it leaves it open for him to return next season to the Northern Hemisphere if he doesn't get any offer to stay in the southern hemisphere.
I'd jump at the chance if I were in his shoes, would be a great experience.
Actually yes, this very true… Rowantree out!!!
Only joking. While I personally would have thought that Ryan was the better of the two. The coaching team didn’t and they know a lot more than I do.
Also financial cut backs had to be made by all provinces. That had to be a factor in this.
Yeah, I don't dispute it's a great potential experience.
I just doubt the money would have been fantastic, and it doesn't give him longevity or security.
He was vocally upset not to be retained by Munster in Dec 2021, so I would have assumed there was a scenario where he could have been persuaded to stay here if the offer was right.
Since he's come back this season, he's played in all four games he's been available for, starting three of them, and essentially played 67% of the available minutes he could have played, so it's not like Munster have viewed him as some break glass in case of emergency option either.
Agreed. A full season in Super Rugby would be a better paid deal than a half season up here and both have him free for next September.
There's 2 obvious issues with this:
(And equally, Kiran McDonald on a 3-month deal definitely wasn't looking for a king's ransom. So why was that an issue??)
Look, I'd have preferred Ryan to stay over Archer too. But I understand the financial realities post-Covid.
We've had a huge amount of turnover of senior guys with CJ, Holland, Sweetnam, Cronin, JJ, Marshall, TOD, KOB and john Ryan himself all senior guys with a significant number of Munster caps leaving for various reasons. That's a lot of flux and is exactly the tier of player you'd expect to be let go.
With that much flux, you're never going to get everything right. But to suggest this was "bungled" when you've literally no idea what actually went on behind the scenes is a massive leap.
And as I said, you have huge issues with Munster's finances but also had criticism of the SA game. it's entirely contradictory.
My criticisms of the SA game were entirely unrelated to the financials - I actually clearly stated the financial aspect made sense. What didn't make sense was it occurring at a time (and selecting a full strength selection) at a time when Munster were claiming to be utterly crippled with injuries.
Maybe I shouldn't have used the phrase "pointless vanity fixture", but it remains a fact that it wasn't a competitive game.
There is no point in going around in circles on this, but I do feel they've messed this situation up, and it leaves them in a situation where they have to hope both Archer and Knox are fit and ready to step in for when Ryan is gone. The squad is obviously weaker for his absence.
Ryan's salary for 3 months plus they wanted to extend his contract to end of season from rowntree comments.
Archer salary
Add them together and it might have been enough to retain Ryan if they offloaded Archer? Ryan is a far better at set piece and around the park.
Injuries happen, so what's your point? If Ryan had been retained and Archer was called in to play for 3 months it'd be the same thing.
It'd actually have been more expensive. But you're exactly right, Burkie isn't comparing like with like.
People making assumptions on what players get paid/were offered just to be right - yeah that makes real sense.
My criticisms of the SA game were entirely unrelated to the financials - I actually clearly stated the financial aspect made sense.
You did. As a single sentence buried inside paragraphs of (that word again) criticism. Someone who is so invested in Munster's finances to the point you're criticising their 5th choice TH should've been effusive with the additional windfall.
What didn't make sense was it occurring at a time (and selecting a full strength selection) at a time when Munster were claiming to be utterly crippled with injuries.
Claiming to be? Are you suggesting Munster weren't crippled with injuries?
Maybe I shouldn't have used the phrase "pointless vanity fixture"
Ya think??
And if Munster had done what you said to fulfil the fixture (i.e. name academy and sub-academy players) it only would've served to:
The squad is obviously weaker for his absence.
I've little disagreement here; he's been excellent (and I was delighted for him to get a try as well when back). But to get from that to Munster having "bungled" things is a leap.
(Showing my age here...)
so where is the money coming from now to pay Ryan?
If it was a Ryan/Archer question a year ago, was the decision financial or was it based on a coaching opinion?
If it was a coaching decision, you would have to question that as Ryan is a far superior player.
I can understand if it's a financial one and there was a view to a holding pattern to allow Knox/Salanoa time to develop but neither look like they will develop into anything other then URC level ATM.
I've no interest in re-hashing the SA A fixture, because we're not going to agree on it, and it's not relevant to this situation.
I said from the outset they bungled this situation and still maintain that's the case, based on the following:
You keep making the point that I'm "so invested in Munster's finances", which is a kind of doublespeak for me being critical of the way Munster have managed their resources over the past decade or so, a point I think is hardly controversial.
There is no need to be so overly sensitive to anything perceived as criticism of Munster - you could just engage with the specific point on its own merits.
The consensus on all the podcasts I listened to at the time suggested it was a financial decision. (And Archer took a one year deal).
The money now could easily be coming from the SA game (and again; a prop looking for a contract mid-season can likel command less than he can during a normal contract cycle).
But the point still stands that the like-for-like equivalent of what you're suggesting would still have cost more.
They've lost a player who they clearly rate very highly for purely financial reasons.
So despite all your criticisms of Munsters finances, you think they should've just handed out the higher contract anyways? You don't see the contradiction??
There is no need to be so overly sensitive to anything perceived as criticism of Munster
I've no issue with criticism of Munster. I have an issue when it's only criticism of Munster. And to be fair you're not the worst offender here, FTD. But I do think you get into the weeds with Munster in a way you don't with your own club.
And while I may seem prickly about it, ultimately, the Munster thread is the only thread on the rugby forum I've seen moderation, warnings and bans over the last while. There's a reason for that.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/ad289898c0c6dda7e667bf900ae26d0c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/ddb508ca3281bbcc5001177dc26332a1.svg)
