Sign Jack now!!!! | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Sign Jack now!!!!

tigerman

It's Tiger Time
Mar 17, 2003
25,541
21,938
Jack's contract expires at the the end of this season.
He is an outstanding talent, and i believe our most valuable asset.
He has been great the last few weeks, and at 21 years of age, his best years our ahead of him.
I'd hate to lose him to one of the new franchises, and would like to see him signed on a four year deal asap.
 
Here here, has been very quite on the Jack front. He would be exactly what Gold Coast would be after, we need to get the job done .
Any one have the inside skinny on were we are at with him.
 
tigerman said:
Jack's contract expires at the the end of this season.
He is an outstanding talent, and i believe our most valuable asset.
He has been great the last few weeks, and at 21 years of age, his best years our ahead of him.
I'd hate to lose him to one of the new franchises, and would like to see him signed on a four year deal asap.
IMO this thinking has been a real blight on the RFC in the past and no-one should be signed on such a long deal ever again... and with the people at the club now I don't think anyone will be.

Added to this, I too would like to see Jaaack resigned by the club and I am sure they will be working toward the same ends.
 
K3 said:
IMO this thinking has been a real blight on the RFC in the past and no-one should be signed on such a long deal ever again... and with the people at the club now I don't think anyone will be.

Added to this, I too would like to see Jaaack resigned by the club and I am sure they will be working toward the same ends.

I'd agree if he was 26 or 27 like Gaspar, but Jack's 21 and we haven't seen the best of him yet.
 
I don't understand the negativity toward long term contracts. In most sports signing a good young player to a contract that secures him through his prime is considered a real coup.
 
I'm glad to see others are finally realising that Jack is future captain material.
 
He could very well be one of the best of all time second forwards. At just 21 he has shown as much as Franklin and Roughy in a much worse team. A 4 year deal would be a very good fit for the tigers.
 
Jason King said:
He could very well be one of the best of all time second forwards. At just 21 he has shown as much as Franklin and Roughy in a much worse team. A 4 year deal would be a very good fit for the tigers.

absolutley sign him up..long term.....future leader and even captain....
 
Long term for sure. If he's this good in a poor side, imagine him when we start to improve. He cannot be the entire forward line by himself, but he can be the piece that holds it all in place for years to come.
 
Mods, can we merge this thread with the "Jack is selfish and should be dumped" thread ? It'd make great reading.
 
Nothing longer than 3 years is in the interests of both the player and club.
Given the TV rights will get renegotiated and player payments will go up, the player will be in a stronger position to negotiate an even better deal in 3 years. For the club the deal is also long enough to bypass the new clubs, but at the same time short enough to ensure the player has to earn his new deal and bigger bucks down the track.
 
Disco08 said:
I don't understand the negativity toward long term contracts. In most sports signing a good young player to a contract that secures him through his prime is considered a real coup.
And what if they do their knee in year 2?
 
ZeroGame said:
Nothing longer than 3 years is in the interests of both the player and club.
Given the TV rights will get renegotiated and player payments will go up, the player will be in a stronger position to negotiate an even better deal in 3 years. For the club the deal is also long enough to bypass the new clubs, but at the same time short enough to ensure the player has to earn his new deal and bigger bucks down the track.

Its Catch 22, damned if you do damned if you do not at Richmond in terms of contracting very good young players for a long period of time and considerable cost. I think back to Mark Coughlan, he was looking great, did his knee, 3 years later, hardly played a game and got retired at years end. Me, given that both GC and GWS are breathing down our necks, particularly as they get all the best draft talent next couple of years, I see no option for Richmond other than to sign Jack and Dusty for 4 year contracts, both players will then be with Richmond until end 2014, I'd also make sure that both players have the option to extend their contracts a further 2 years after seeing through their first 2 years of the new contract. That way with some good luck both Jack and Dusty are tied to Richmond end of 2016, Jack would be 27 (right at his peak), Dusty at 24 (coming into his peak).

First and foremost, Richmond must protect its future developing players, the Tigers can not afford to lose any young gun player at present to another club let alone upstart new clubs. Player retention is a must and if that means a 3 or 4 year contract to guarantee that, so be it.
 
mb64 said:
And what if they do their knee in year 2?

What's the difference? Would you delist a great young player because they had to have a knee reco at 22?
 
Our problem in the past is not so much that we signed 3-yr deals, it was who we signed them with. The likes of Hall, Tivendale & Fiora were mediocre - and youngish - players, with long term deals. The line throughthese guys would extend to the likes of White, McGuane and Nahas (ie they may become serviceable 150-game players, but not A-Graders).

Jack is not in that category. He is already good - and may one day, become a very good (great?) player. I'd like us to lock hime in. He is certainly capable of being our long term #1 KPF.