Munster Team Talk Thread - Snymans are(n't) Forever

So they have paid out either way what it would have cost to keep Ryan

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 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:

1. It would leave Munster with 1 prop instead of 2.
2. And James French wasn't given a contract at the same time; it was the year previous. You can't just cancel his contract to make up the difference.

(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.

It'd actually have been more expensive. But you're exactly right, Burkie isn't comparing like with like.

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:

1. Further alienated the Cork fans (they didn't pay to see an academy team, which was never going to happen in the first place).
2. Jeoparise any future touring team agreeing to an invitational game against Munster again.
3. Be entirely unfair on those players.

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.

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.