General NAFE SELUINI - to leave the Warriors

Ryan_old

Guest
Hypothetically speaking, what if Penrith has offered Ioane and Seluini more $$$ than the Warriors could possibly afford, if taking into account that they still need $$$ to secure Johnson, Fish & Ikahihifo. Perhaps that is the trade-off for retention. Lose a few, keep the majority. The flip-side of the situation could be that in order to retain Seluini, they would risk losing the other four juniors mentioned...
 

Magic Stick_old

Guest
Mark Ioane - Raiders
Elijah Niko - Storm
Suitonga Likiliki - Knight
Nafe Seulini - Panthers

Apparently Mike Afioga wants out and might of already left

Glen Fisiiahi ?
Sebastine Ikahihifo ?
Shaun Johnson - i think he is locked up in 2011
Sam Lousi ?
 

Ryan_old

Guest
Hypothetically speaking, what if Johnson has recently had a brain-fart and decided to ask for huge, way-overs $$$, and Seluini coincidently decided to do the same, and management had to make a choice between the two. Perhaps Seymour has been giving the Warriors plenty of warning that he plans to stay no longer than 2011, and management had to think about our halves stock as a prority over hookers...
 

Iafeta_old

Guest
That shouldn't really be the case. I could understand if on market value we'd picked up more than we gained, but Price and Tate in particular must take up a fair part of the cap. Given the comments that we were still chasing Adam Blair, and the only thing thats happened since then has been Vatuvei's upgrade and the resigning of Lillyman, coupled with the losses of Royal, Henderson and Patrick Ah Van since then also, I would say we're playing well under the cap next year. In my mind the clearing of the decks of some good salary should have been the precursor for resigns and upgrades.

My only lingering nightmare is that perhaps we are at the cap limit, which would suggest we're paying big overs for Inu and Mateo. Mateo should get good cash here, Inu definitely should not be getting anything more than the obligatory $250K we have to pay for players to come to NZ. Seluini would have been lethal working with Mateo.
 

Iafeta_old

Guest
I'm not sure if too many clubs will scramble for Seymour given more or less his disciplinary record. He also won't have the ESL up his sleeve as I don't think he's get a working visa given his off field problems. From memory, Greg Eastwood was denied at one stage for a speeding ticket or something silly.
 

Iafeta_old

Guest
Given Mad Butcher has posted it, I dare say Seluini is confirmed. It was also in an article online on stuff or nzherald.
 

Magic Stick_old

Guest
Seulini scooping after a quick Rapira play the ball....would cause havoc

This grates me big time....Dean Bell you egg
 

Iafeta_old

Guest
Because Dean Bell's role is recruitment and player welfare. It is his accountability.
 

Magic Stick_old

Guest
This is the kind of stuff that grates. How do you know it's Dean Bell's fault. There are executives above him, y'know.

And your clueless....shove your hypothetical crap where the sun dont shine
 

Ryan_old

Guest
Because Dean Bell's role is recruitment and player welfare. It is his accountability.
And I'm assuming Dean Bell can be overruled in the chain of command. Perhaps Mr Bell had every intention of keeping Seluini, but the budget department has told him, "sorry, buddy", but we can't match their (team X) offer.
 

Iafeta_old

Guest
I would doubt very much that is the case. We are not in the same boat as say the Cronulla Sharks. I would think if that is the case it is unlikely we would have resigned for example Jacob Lillyman.
 

Ryan_old

Guest
I don't think that the Warrior's management would have let him go without a fight. Perhaps giving him the Junior Of The Year award had something to do with it? At the end of the day, as was mentioned earlier, they (management) cannot control everything to the nth degree. It's possible we even exceeded team X's offer, but it isn't always about $$$.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ryan_old

Guest
What I'm trying to point out is that, without the data to back up the reasoning, all speculation on the causality (mine included) is hot air only.
 

Iafeta_old

Guest
I would be buggered to believe it could not be anything other than dollars. Nafe had a very clear succession plan here at the Warriors, particularly with Henderson moving on. He is now very clearly third in line behind Heremaia and Mara for the hooking role, and has every prospect of overcoming both of those players. He will still be behind Kevin Kingston and Masada Iosefa at Penrith.

Irrespective of how much of a fight was put up, the only end result is an abject failure. Nothing grates me more than to have seen Cooper Vuna excel at Newcastle. He should never have been forced to leave. Nothing grates me more than seeing Frank-Paul carving up for the Roosters. I can understand his lifestyle in Auckland was poor and for his own well being the club had to move him on, so I get that one and accept it. Nafe Seluini is potentially the most outstanding hooker we have had at this club since PJ Marsh, and to be fair, he could excel above him.

End result=failure of epic proportions for a club who trots out the "We're the farm", "We're a development club". If we're true to our word about that, we do everything possible (which IMO is clearly not done here in this case) to retain our best and brightest prospects. Nafe Seluini is the best prospect of what is an outstanding crop of 2010 NYC talent.
 

Magic Stick_old

Guest
Its all about money....And the Warriors have more cap room than most teams...too let Nafe maybe the most exciting prospect in the game go and a local kid is a disgrace

Its not liked he is blocked by a Cam Smith or Issac Luke

Again the Warriors front office and recruitment continue to take one step forward and then 2 steps back
 

Ryan_old

Guest
Iafeta, your case is well put and convincing, but I'm not going to stress about it (Nafe leaving) because I've only any information from one side of the story (ours, on this forum). And I agree that, in any case, Nafe leaving equals a failure, no doubt about it, however, I'm going to (pretend to (so I can sleep well)) keep in mind the balance sheet of this. Failure here could have meant keeping all the others on the priority list, perhaps.

All up, I'd be just as horrified as anyone if this all turns out to be a black and white case of simply letting him go because he wasn't prioritised for retention.
 
Last edited by a moderator: