A heir and a spare - an excellent position to be inOriginally Posted by TOCC
61 years between Grand SlamsWas the wait worth it - Ya betta baby
Jimmy must be tackling the crap out of amateur Japanese players by now
"Bloody oath we did!"
Nathan Sharpe, Legend.
Happy I think you are spot on, Mr Erskine may have tried to push for a bit and not realising how quickly the world has chnaged from an economic standpoint, pushed his client over the proverbial limit of what is available.
He is a great player, but at some point there has to be limit what can be offred to him.
I doubt that any other Aussie team has much more sponsorship "cash" that can be thrown about, in togh economic times corporate sponsorship is one of the easiest and least painful expeneses to cut back on.
"Bloody oath we did!"
Nathan Sharpe, Legend.
"The main difference between playing League and Union is that now I get my hangovers on Monday instead of Sunday - Tom David
Yup. Convinced we never saw the best of Jimmy. I really rate him & I'm hoping contact has been made to see if he can do a CO'Y if needed. Matter of fact I'm starting to swing towards hoping he is (needed and available).Jimmy must be tackling the crap out of amateur Japanese players by now
"The main difference between playing League and Union is that now I get my hangovers on Monday instead of Sunday - Tom David
Just a couple of points:
1. On the surface of it, the deal offered was a damn sight better than good - it was $400k for the next three years plus and additional $400k to cover the loss of sponsorship in 2008.
2. I'm not sure something better could "come along" from within Australia. Discussions for 2010 are one thing, but no union would be able to put a contract in front of Giteau for 2009 without the ARU's blessing if the contracting window has closed.
3. Jargs is right - as a professional sportsman, the whole point of playing is the money. If it were just the fun, he would be playing subbies and not subjecting himself to the pressure. The only reasons he could likely have for not signing the ET offer are that it contained unreasonable clauses (something like exclusivity, for example), or that there is something more important than $1.6M preventing him from committing himself post-May next year (couldn't even guess what), or he has actually decided he will not sign post-2009.
4. The Aussie teams do not "throw around" sponsorship cash - it is not theirs to spend. It may be harder to come by in tough times but, if so, it is worth remembering that the team is then competing with the players for the sponsorship dollar.
Matt Giteau rejects $1.6m Force offer 1/11/08
After Saturday's Bledisloe Cup clash, Giteau confirmed he had knocked back the offer.
"Yes I've declined the offer. It's not what everyone seems to think it is though. That's all I can say about it," he said.
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/stor...005401,00.html
Clearly he wasn't happy with the contract offered...any number of things who knows he didn;t like it offer...But as he said its wasn't the 1.6 million like everyone thinks...
ive read through alot of threads on different websites lately about this and a heap of articles and one thing keeps popping up,
now i havnt heard gits directly quoted so not sure were the word is coming from, but they dont just say he is upset with his loss of earnings but comment on how that extra money was responsable for luring him away from canberra.
now im not fishing here cos ive been to canberra a few times and quite frankly anything would be better, but the guy moved away from his family, junior club, local team, mentors etc for money, that money wasnt delivered and he feels hurt. the more i read thats the simple crust of it, he was greedy and it backfired on him.
i was listening to this being discussed the other night on fox sports and someone remarked that most of the firepower money was payed in stocks? is there any truth to that? maybe the new sponsorship was in stocks again and gits didnt want to risk it?
Rugby365.com, has a story in regard Brumbies chasing Matt;
"Matt is contracted with the Western Force for 2009, but we will be discussing the possibility of a return to Canberra for 2010 and 2011," he told this website.
For full story: www.rugby365.com/tournaments/super14/news/1366461.htm
I think this suggests we may have Matt for 2009.
WJ if it's money then it's money and we know where we stand - at the moment there is a vacuum - he needs to put this one to rest himself - doubt he will get a better offer in the current climate - Fans want commitment, Coaches need commitment - players need to balance their needs with some semblance of a plausible front - Gitts is looking like a spoilt brat with the dragging of heels on this one - it would be better for theto know one way or the other and prepare for the season ahead.
61 years between Grand Slams
no that only suggests that the Brumbies arent willing to break the rules by approaching a player for a season he is already under contract for..
ARU rules stipulate that teams arent allowed to approach a player for a season that he is already under contract for, unless he has a clause which would allow him to get out early.
Legally the Brumbies arent allowed to say they are chasing Giteau for 2009
Well if its the money, and if he plays for
Do private corporations in Canberra have that much?
i think canberra being close to sydney doesnt need the organisations to be local, im sure he will be able to pick up extra tv commitments with fox etc.
either that or he will be on alot of billboards at fishwik!!!
Leaving Giteau in an interesting bind. If the Brumbies wanted to be buggers they'd encourage Giteau to leave the Force but say they can't make him any form of offer yet because thats not allowed. Then once he has burnt his bridge here they can offer him a hell of a lot less than they had made out and he wouldn't have much choice but to accept.
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
