The Force should stop chasing big-name signings and build purely from
Every time we splash the cash on some marquee name who bricks it in four weeks, a local kid bags a try on debut for free. The Associates pipeline has been carrying this club more than any chequebook ever has, and yet somehow we keep doing the same thing. Keen to see who defends the import spending first, because that's an ROI even the fanboys can't spin 😏
14 posts
-
✓One debut try and suddenly Associates is a production line? Pull the other one, Andy. You're damning the chequebook off one dud import and crowning the pipeline off one feel-good story. That's one data point each way. Build from Perth by all means, on condition we still sign a couple of hardened pros, because throwing club kids into Super Rugby Pacific cold is how you get schooled every week.Sample first, conclusions after.
-
Rob, how many more dud imports do you need before it clicks?? 🔥 Remember blokes we paid big NZ$ for who lasted four matches and gone, meanwhile the Associates kid scores on debut for FREE. That's not one data point, that's the whole pattern tbh 🙌 Build from Perth, back our own, through thick and thin 💪
-
Rob's got a fair point about one debut try, but that's exactly why I keep my own table. I've tracked the signings since the rebuild started, and the marquee imports have been a net negative more often than they've paid off — four matches and gone is a pattern, not a one-off. Small sample though, so I wouldn't crown Associates as a production line off one kid either. There's a nuance here: the pipeline doesn't need to out-produce the chequebook, it just needs to produce cheaper, hungrier blokes who actually want the jersey. If two of them stick per season for the price of one import's signing fee in NZ$, that's a better return even if the tries per head look similar on paper. 📊
-
the young lot never saw it, but back in the amateur days clubs lived off their own nursery and it worked fine, the WA clubs have always had rough diamonds if you're patient enough to look. rob's right that one try proves nothing, but fix's table only says what us old buggers already knew: chequebook signings mostly pack their bags, the local kid stays for the love of it 😉Remember when the grass was greener 🌱
-
FixIsInPTSD's table mirrors what I've scribbled down at my kitchen bench each round, and I'd back him on the pattern, the marquee money has mostly bought us four-match cameo episodes rather than seasons. Where I'd add a caveat though: pure Perth club rugby recruitment has its own failure mode, because a dominant Associates Premier Grade season doesn't always translate when the shrug tackle arrives and the line speed doubles. There's a nuance there. The WA clubs keep producing rough diamonds, but someone still has to coach the polish into them, and that pathway costs less than a marquee import without being free. My youngest nephew went through the WA academy a few years back and watched his cohort get exactly two contract interviews between a dozen of them. So yeah, cheaper local-first model, agreed. Just don't pretend the development side funds itself. Small sample though, on my nephew at least. 📊Numbers > vibes.
-
I've blown enough NZ$ on dodgy multis to know a bad price when I see one, and marquee money for a bloke who lasts four matches is the worst value in the comp 😂 The Associates kid cost us nothing and already repaid it, so who's actually signing off on these imports, because I wouldn't back them to pick a winner at the TAB?Here to argue, not to nod along.
-
One debut try and suddenly half the forum's got a spreadsheet 😂 one Associates kid doesn't prove the whole nursery's ready, ah well, nowt to do 🔥You don't abandon your own.
-
ah but one debut try was never the whole argument, mate. That Associates kid cost us nothing and the marquee bloke cost a decent pile of NZ$ and lasted four matches, that's the point. patience with the nursery worked back in my day and it still does, give the Perth lads two or three seasons before you judge them. watch as long as I have and you'll see the pattern too 😄Been here longer than some have followed.
-
Define "marquee" before we all nod along, because half those contracts had performance clauses we never saw the trigger conditions for.Sample first, conclusions after.
-
Hannah's got a fair point about those clause triggers, honestly, I could be wrong, but I reckon half the time the "marquee" label came with fine print we never saw, and I'd want the actual contract maths before writing off the whole approach. That said, I keep my own table every round and the Associates kid line still reads better value than the four-match import at any price. Hard out, one debut try proves nothing on its own, but the cost per contribution column doesn't lie. 📊Do the math before you argue.
-
Contract maths 😂 mate I've put better multi slips than those "clauses" through the TAB.associates kid scored, import bloke limped off. That's my whole spreadsheet. 🤡💸Here to argue, not to nod along.
-
Tbh a spreadsheet with one row is still a spreadsheet 😂 but GoTheDistance, one crooked import doesn't kill the whole idea either, bro. Kid from Associates gets hyped, disappears next season half the time too. Build from Perth rugby, yep, just don't pretend every club kid is gonna be a star 🏉🔥One love, one side ❤️
-
Funny how both sides of this thread are arguing from one anecdote each, an import with four matches and a debut try is a sample size of nothing, depends how you count it. I'd want to see three or four seasons of Perth kids tracked through to Super Rugby minutes (and how many actually stuck) before betting the whole pathway on it, and equally the NZ$ cost per match for those marquee deals. Bunnings NPC is right there as a middle rung too, which nobody's factored in yet. Could be wrong, but I reckon the truth sits somewhere untidy between Andy's spreadsheet and Hannah's fine print 📊