Following on from here
New Munster chat thread folks. warning deserved there. https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=109477571#post109477571
Would it be as interesting as the fact that 5 of Leinster's starting team didn't come through their academy?
Or that, adjusting homegrown starters by population (9/1.3m vs 10/2.8m), the Munster academy is more than twice as efficient as Leinster's?
Unless you want to discuss which NIQ props might be available post-RWC. That could be an interesting topic for discussion; I think we've the fewest number of NIQ players at the moment so there could well be room for one.
Well, thinking on this, I was looking at the likely candidates, assuming they come from the big 3 SH nations.
I think potential ABs available: George Bower (he'll be 31, and out of contract I think, more typically a LH but supposedly comfortable on both sides of the scrum) and possibly Tyrel Lomax (contract up at end 2023).
Springboks: Frans Malherbe or possibly another bite at Thomas du Toit?
Aussies: Alan Ala'alatoa (Big Mike's brother), contract up in 2023, Tom Robertson (seems to be on 1 year deals).
but the one I'd put money on given some Munster links through his cousin Casey is Nepo Laulala. Right age profile. Contract up at the end of 2023.
I think the impact of South African provinces in the URC & Europe might make some of them more willing to stay at home than perhaps past post RWC cycles (as there seems to be a bit more cash in SA rugby, but could be wrong).
It doesnt matter though and being irish qualified is more important. The number of players to come through the home system is still far greater than most teams in Europe and the academy is getting better and doing more in recent years especially now with cozzy in charge
oh thats great thanks for the clarification
you may not find it interesting, but i do think its something to be noted that despite everyone being irish qualified (which is great), a third of both the starting team and the squad overall didnt come through the munster system, thats alot. does it matter in the short team - no. if its an ongoing trend i dont think its a particularly good thing at all
I think you're agreeing with each other
edit: maybe not then..
Its not really and it isnt an issue.
interesting to note too though that 6 of the starting team didn't come through the munster system with another 2 on the bench, that's alot in my opinion
Its worth noting that Munster had a fully IQ 23 at the weekend.
Great, and how much of that have you posted in the Leinster thread?? ;) Anyways, lets leave it there, FTD, for the sake of the thread.
As good as Leinster have been, I doubt they've been perfect. What would you say Leinster have bungled over the last while?
Not strictly relevant to this thread, but the two big ones that spring to mind for me are the amount of money spent on the Donnybrook redevelopment only to have outgrown it even before completion, and then the Matt O'Connor hire. I know he'd had some success with Leicester, but stylistically he was never a fit for Leinster, and obviously it didn't work out (despite him giving some debuts to guys who would go on to become cornerstone players).
Leinster have also had our fair share of expensive flop-like signings over the years, with guys like Kane Douglas and Steven Sykes probably the worst two who spring to mind, but guys like Lote Tuqiri and CJ van der Linde (more injury reasons) would also probably count. There were also a slew of poor quality imports in the 2000s who weren't good enough, and just served to block more talented youngsters coming through.
Exactly; you're saying it after the fact. (And you've no idea what happened behind the scenes here either).
During the window when the opted not to extend John Ryan they resigned a whole host of players, and in roughly the same time period, they attempted unsuccessfully to resign DDA and did sign Fekitoa.
I have a feeling if I read back over the 500 pages of this thread, I'd see that Munster fans agree the front row has been a problem area for Munster probably since the days of BJ Botha, yet they have prioritised some expensive NIQ signings in other areas, especially the centre (where by my reckoning Munster has consistently had at least 1 NIQ player in every season going back to around the 2004/05 season).
There's an obvious difference between signing a guy on a contract and signing a guy as emergency cover.
And by all accounts it wasn't just more money; it was more money over a longer period (the reports at the time were that Ryan wanted 2 years, but Archer wanted 1).
I'm saying, maybe they should consider allocating resources towards cornerstone positions like THP rather than signing expensive Southern Hemisphere backs.
Don't think this is a fair comment - I'm plenty prepared to criticise Leinster for what I consider to be bad decisions or poor administration,
Jaysus lads, give it a rest.
The ONLY reason Ryan is back is for INJURY COVER. There are times when a club needs injury cover, it's seldom if ever budgeted for but it is required.
Now, trying to use one tiny piece of information and then a few assumptions you can come to any conclusion you want to make out that you and you alone are correct is a pointless discussion and I really don't see why people are giving it oxygen.
The criticism of their finances is precisely because they mismanage situations like this - they've ended bringing the guy back for a chunk of the season anyway, they've just done it in a way where they won't have him when they really need him.
You're ignoring the point that it wasn't simply a binary decision between paying John Ryan more money or not.
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??
But I do think you get into the weeds with Munster in a way you don't with your own club.
Don't think this is a fair comment - I'm plenty prepared to criticise Leinster for what I consider to be bad decisions or poor administration, but I don't think it's an outlandish statement that, notwithstanding some of the structural advantages Leinster have, that they've also been the best run of the 4 provinces by a distance over the past decade plus.
Anyway, we're just going around in circles here as usual.
They've lost a player who they clearly rate very highly for purely financial reasons.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(Showing my age here...)
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.
People making assumptions on what players get paid/were offered just to be right - yeah that makes real sense.
It'd actually have been more expensive. But you're exactly right, Burkie isn't comparing like with like.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/ad289898c0c6dda7e667bf900ae26d0c.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/ddb508ca3281bbcc5001177dc26332a1.svg)
