SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA - AUGUST 12: Jarryd Hayne and coach Brad Arthur watch the team train during a Parramatta Eels NRL training session at Pirtek Stadium on August 12, 2014 in Sydney, Australia. (Photo by Renee McKay/Getty Images)

Brad Arthur has hit back at criticism suggesting that the Parramatta Eels are making the wrong decision to bring back Jarryd Hayne in the 2018 season.

Parramatta legend Peter Sterling insists that the Eels should’ve primarily focused on signing a front-rower.

Hayne took a pay-cut of three-quarters of a million dollars. The two-time Dally M medal winner was paid $1.2m at the Gold Coast, now agreeing to a $500,000 deal with the Eels.

Anyone who departs one club and sings with another is usually receiving an increase in their paycheque.

“Jarryd had taken a substantial hit and he has done it for all the right reasons,” Arthur said.

SEE ALSO:  Sea Eagles release statement regarding Barrett

Reports suggest that Hayne will most certainly play in the centre position, Sterling believes that it’s not an ideal position for the talented fullback. Arthur still hasn’t provided a confirmation as of yet.

“Somewhere in the backline,” Arthur said.

“The thing is he can play centre, he can play wing, he can play fullback.

“He has shown that he can play five-eighth.

“Between now and round one lots of things will chop and change.”

Adding respect to the criticism, Arthur said: “It is alright to say go and buy a front-rower but there needs to be a front-rower available.

“And what they also need to know is that we still have money for a front-rower.

SEE ALSO:  Gallen to extend career into 2019

“If we didn’t keep money last year and just went and threw it around on anybody we wouldn’t have got Mitchell Moses.

“And maybe we wouldn’t have finished fourth, I don’t know.

“But we have money there for the right person when they come around.

“We only have 28 players in our squad.”

43 COMMENTS

  1. “Hayne took a pay-cut of three-quarters of a million dollars. The two-time Dally M medal winner was paid $1.2m at the Gold Coast, now agreeing to a $500,000 deal with the Eels.”

    That hurts BIG time considering that Souths were FORCED by the NRL to sign Sam Burgess for $300K MORE than his previous expired NRL contract. Hayne still had a valid NRL contract and the NRL were happy to look the otger way THIS time. What a rort. The NRL are a disgrace!

    • @SSTID, I can understand the frustration. I don’t think the NRL have ratified the Hayne contract as yet, that may happen over the coming weeks and will be interesting to monitor.

      The only difference I can think of between Hayne and Burgess returning to their former clubs, is that Hayne returned to a rival NRL club and flopped (which would have decreased his value), whereas Burgess returned from rugby union straight back to the Bunnies. Hence his market value had remained the same as his last NRL season, at which he performed incredibly well.

      • @ gotheeels

        “The only difference I can think of… Hayne returned to a rival NRL club and flopped (which would have decreased his value)”

        No, that’s not reason. Firstly Hayne’s contract was still valid and his “market value” was already set at $1.2 mill per season. It is the whole “market value” argument that is a red herring. Players are legally free to sign for whoever they wish for whatever they wish (within reason, teams won’t get away with something ridiculously low). Robert, Parker and Gillett are 3 recent examples of this. Yes I am singling out the Broncos but only because no other examples spring readily to mind. At lease Cam Smith, Jonathan Thurston, Cooper Cronk and James Tedesco are on $1 mill a season (or thereabouts). DCE is on $1.25 mill for crying out loud and even Ben Hunt is on $1 mill a season with the Dragons. The 3 Broncos players mentioned have been offered substantially more by other clubs but have turned down these offers to play for the Broncos and… (now THIS is the point gotheeels so pay attention and don’t miss it), the NRL have NOT forced the Broncos to pay these players what other clubs were offering (i.e. their “market value”).

        And as for any idea that the NRL will step in and demand that the Eels upgrade Hayne’s contract to his current “market value” $1.2 mill a season, forget it. It WON’T happen and you can put your house on it.

        “Smile and wave boys! Smile and wave” – Todd Greenberg (NRL CEO)

        • “And as for any idea that the NRL will step in and demand that the Eels upgrade Hayne’s contract to his current “market value” $1.2 mill a season, forget it. It WON’T happen and you can put your house on it.”

          Of course it won’t happen. $1.2 mil NOT “fair market value”. He could be earning that for next season, because of his option, but no one would sign him today at $1.2 mil.

        • mighty! WHAT is it with you eels boys lately always wanting to argue and always misunderstanding the point I am making? The point about “market value” IS THE ARGUMENT!!! It is NOT something the NRL are policing or enforcing with ANY consistency. In fact I have asked you to give me just ONE other example of a repeat of the Sam Burgess interference but you haven’t. WHY? Remember the Eels missed Folau deal is another kettle of fish and no more red herrings please Mr fishmonger. 😉

        • I can’t think of another example, but as per a previous comment, look at the specific case, and it’s a simple case of the Bunnies went too far, and they found the NRL’s braking point.

          That doesn’t make the Bunnies victims, it doesn’t mean the NRL lacks consistancy, it doesn’t mean anyone should have to pay $1.2 mil for Hayne (and no one would) etc etc. it means the Bunnies went too far, and let’s face it, Burgess was not actually going to earning $500k, and the NRL did the right thing, and said NO.

        • You are the one missing the point SSTID. Market value is determined by what he would get if he went to open market, not the value of his existing contract, which was signed when his market value was higher.

          As for consistency, it is the NRL don’t forget

        • “it’s a simple case of the Bunnies went too far, and they found the NRL’s braking point.”

          mighty if it is so simple then explain it to me. HOW were Souths trying to push the NRL too far by re-signing a player for the same value after he has been away from the game for a year and down on form and confidence? Then explain to me how the Broncos were allowed to sign Gillett, Parker and Roberts for far less than they were being offered elsewhere?

          You are being stubborn mighty trying to win an unwinnable argument because you are on the WRONG side of it. The inconsistency is obvious for all to see and there was NO reason for the NRL to interfere. In fact they did not choose to interfere until several coaches went to the media and started to complain. Mind you this did not happen in the cases of the 3 aforementioned Broncos signing. Why?

    • Mate , i agree with what you just said, that annoy’s me no end , why didn’t the NRL value him at $900k at least, what double standards

      • Penso, done. The Bunnies can have him at $900k. Happy now? If not, maybe, just maybe it’s because he’s not worth $900k right now.

        • Eels agree he is not worth that much , but i honestly believe that Hayne will be good for you guys next year and could seriously take you to the title, what SSTID and myself are saying , why did the NRL interfere in the contract amount for Burgess when they have not do so for any other player, that’s all , we are not putting crap on Parra in any way, well i’m not , just the NRL.

        • I understand that, but in fairness, look at the Burgess deal, and it was seriously under a realistic market value, it was so far under the NRL put a stop to it.

          I don’t blame the NRL for that.

        • mighty you just don’t get it mate. It is like talking to a brick wall. Gillett, Parker and Roberts were all SERIOUSLY under valued by the Broncos and were all well under their market value!
          Souths had a deal on the table for Robetts at $500K (which was the market value that the NRL stipulated) yet Roberts was signed by the Broncos for $300K. Gillett likewise had a tabled offer elsewhere for $300K more than the Broncos re-signed him for. Similar story with Parker.

          How could Burgess be worth more after a year out of the game and an obvious loss in confidence and form? There was no formal offer on the table by any other club. It was all talk and Sam said from tge beginning he ONLY wanted to sign with Souths.

          You kerp throwing up red herrings and smoke screens but I won’t budge mate. You are wrong and your arguments don’t make sense.

          Why are you being so tenacious and obstructive on this issue? Especially when the facts are against you. The NRL’s inconsistency in this area simply cannot be argued.

          Are you trying to get my blood pressure up mate? Because it’s working.

        • “Why are you being so tenacious and obstructive on the issue?”… the same coild be said for you mate. No one is trying to anger you or get your blood pressure up, it is a debate and we see things differently to you.

          I am not arguing that the NRL is condistent on the matter, they obviously aren’t, but that doesn’t change the fact that the right decusion happened on the Burgess case. Surely you don’t honestly think he was only worth 500k, take off the souths glasses and look at it objectively. The Roberts one was extremely frustrating i know, given both the team involved and the players history, but as for Gillett and Parker, i may be wrong, but my understanding is that teams can re-sign players for less……

        • “teams can re-sign players for less”

          And Souths can’t be afforded the same opportunity given that Burgess still had one year to go on his contract with Souths (2015) and was granted a release on “compassionate grounds”? It is a technicality that he was signing for 2016 (given these unusual circumstances) are you saying that had Burgess not been given the release and he was still at Souths they could have re-signed him for LESS? So at the end of Sam’s current contract Souths can drop this to say $200K like the Broncos did with League great Lockyer?

          All supporters of the game know that Corey Parker was WORTH BIG $$’s but was given chicken feed. I have posted at length about this before and an article from FOX Sports in HIS words were he says he had offers to go elsewhere for much more. The same thing happened with Gillett who had a BIG offer to go to the Warriors or Dragons (I forget which) but like Parker and Roberts ended up re-signing with the Broncos for about $300K less! The inconsistency is obvious it is undermining the game. At least the Roosters are paying Cronk and Tedesco what they are worth.

          “the same could be said for you mate.”

          Yes but how many times have I been the one to say “we will have to agree to disagree”? Particularly with the eels trio, recently with crowy, with tommy and many others many, many times. Why can’t the eels trio do likewise? Why do you have to take turns coming in under me and playing tag team debate. I am not going to change my mind on this unless the facts change and they won’t. I think you boys are just a little defensive because now the eels are benefiting from the inequity in the system given that you are getting a rep player (former Australian rep, current NSW SOO and International rep for Fiji) for $300K less than “his current market value” which is $1.2 mill” what he was already on for 2018 at the Titans before HE chose to walk.

          Funny isn’t it how this $300K price slashing seems to pop up on a regular basis. I wonder when it will be Souths turn to benefit from this? Maybe when they re-sign Crichton for $500K instead of $800K (after all he is ALREADY playing for Souths) so perhaps we could re-sign him for $200K would everyone here be OK with that? Yet if it happened at the Broncos it would be business as usual. Sounds fair to me.

        • SSTID, nah, nothing to see here.

          http://www.theage.com.au/rugby-league/south-sydney-rabbitohs/nrl-blocks-sam-burgess-south-sydney-rabbitohs-contract-20151126-gl95x9.html?deviceType=text

          I think the reason the NRL stepped in was because it looked extremely sus.

          http://www.theage.com.au/rugby-league/south-sydney-rabbitohs/nrl-blocks-sam-burgess-south-sydney-rabbitohs-contract-20151126-gl95x9.html?deviceType=text

          $500k p.a, no other club making a play, because a deal would only be for $500k, no other little “perks” thrown in. If that was genuinely the case, then I am wrong, and I’ll admit I’m wrong, but it’s extremely hard to believe. Throw in the fact that the NRL did step in, when they let so much go to the keeper, is part of point. For the NRL to step in tells me it was so sus they had no choice, and the Bunnies did pay up to $800k, and $800k for Sam still look like a bargain.

        • Like i said, it is my understanding, so yeah i think Souths will be able to sign Crichton for less than another team, so long as he is happy with that.

          I am happy to agree to disagree, but you are the one who keeps bringing this up, we are just providing a counter argument. No need to get all bent out of shape about it, we are just oroviding an opinion like you.

        • SSTID, I’ve tried to reply with a couple of links to articles that put some context around the Sam deal, but they didn’t get through, so in a nutshell:

          Apparently there was a huge payout to Bath to get him out of that contract (around $1.5 mil), and talk (just speculation) that the Bunnies were paying up to $1.5 per season (that would be way too much). The $1.5 mil payout would be enough to turn most clubs of getting involved, as would all the media articles stating is was the biggest ever deal etc. whether any of that was true or not, surely that’s what/why the NRL took a look, and why no other club made a play, and surely you’re not arguing Sam was only worth $500k a season, especially as you (the Bunnies) paid the $800k, so you’re whole argument seems to be “the NRL should have looked away”. I disagree.

        • As for the Hayne deal, in a word NO.

          I know I have a bias towards Parra, which is what makes me a supporter, but to keep perspective I look at the situation as if it was happening / involved another club. In this case I would not have a problem with Hayne signing for any other club at $500k, not based on the current situation. To be perfectly honest you, or anyone else can have him at $500k, because we have a pool of young talented guys that earned / are earning as much game time as we can give them.

          I hope it works out for us, but I’m not wearing a Parra monocle on this one.

        • Why should a pay out count against the salary cap if that is compensation to the club releasing him and not part of the players salary? Is there ANY precedent for this in the past? I don’t think so.

          The link you posted is only the second half of the story. You miss the first half where Souths were going to register a contract for the same value as his last contract ($500K) but were forced by the NRL to up that to $800K. It was “rumoured” to be $1.2 mill, despite the article quoting $1.5 mill (including TPA’s, NOT on the cap). Also tell me ANY other player were the pressw or the NRL release figures quoting TPA payments which are meant to be confidential (hence the whole problem with TPA’s, no transparency and not included on the cap). So there is yet another example where Souths have been treated differently to all other clubs.

          “surely you’re not arguing Sam was only worth $500k a season”

          And surely you’re not arguing that Gillett, Parker and Roberts are worth around $300K less at the Broncos than at the other clubs who were prepared to pay them more? It works BOTH ways. My argument all along has been about the inconsistency of the NRL in all of this and that Souths are the ONLY team to have been disadvantaged with the NRL stepping in directly to force them to pay “market value”. I have not yet seen you prove this wrong. You have NOT named any other club that has had the NRL step in and interfere with a contract negotiation and force the club to pay more than the player was already willing to accept irrespective of better offers elsewhere. I have given you 3 examples of this with the Broncos where all had offers for more money to play elsewhere (higher market value) but the NRL did not force the Broncos to match this or the contracts in question would not be registered.

          “the NRL should have looked away”

          Like they did with the 3 Broncos players I have mentioned or the signing of 3 marquee players (Maloney, SBW and Jennings) for the Roosters in 2013 when they bought a premiership and Matthew Johns said in his estimation the Roosters were over the cap by about $4.5 mill? LIke that? Of course not. That simply isn’t how it works is it?

          “I’m not wearing a Parra monocle”

          Yes, yes you are. It is the same thing as Gillett, Parker and Roberts only this time it paints the Eels in a bad or opportunistic light.

          We are not going to agree on this mighty and you will not be able to find examples to answer the questions I have posed above because there aren’t any.

          Now let’s let it go and just be grateful that the Eels can benefit where the Rabbits were disadvantaged. Trust me, Souths supporters are used to this by now.

          So YES, let’s agree to disagree!

        • “Now let’s let it go and just be grateful that the Eels can benefit where the Rabbits were disadvantaged. Trust me, Souths supporters are used to this by now.”

          I’m happy to agree to disagree, but seriously, 1 last extremely biased “I’m taking my bat and ball” opinion /shot across the bow. Did you really need to do that?

          “eels can benefit”, but if the NRL knocks the Hayne deal back, and sets a min of $800k, Parra will walk, and the Bunnies didn’t re Burgess. Not that the NRL should increase Hayne’s “fair market value”, and as per above, irrespective of who was signing him.

        • ” “I’m taking my bat and ball” opinion /shot across the bow.”

          Which is precisely what you did before my post. So you are entitled? OK. Is Groundhog Day over now Ned?

        • One last comment. I believe Bernie Gurr’s push to have player salaries made public will assist with this. If thrre is transparancy there is more chance of the rules being enforced fairly. Sure, there will still be dodgy deals done on the side, but it will definitely help.

        • This will help eels47 but this needs to include TPA’s to give a full picture. It seems this would be a “legal minefield” though so no doubt TPA’s will still be under the table. The NRL should have available online all the breakdown of all teams salary cap IMO, for the sake of transparency and to stop all the guess work by fans.

    • Proof we aren’t the same person at least. Should we throw out a challenge to “the usual suspects” do you think? Let’s nominate a time and ask them all to post at the SAME time. Do you think they could post comments across multiple devices and get the same date time stamp? “Computer says NO!” Bahahahahahahaha

  2. Well said BA. I for one, have a lot faith in our coach, this is the same guy that helped us out of the darkest chapter of our club’s history and held his nerve while fronting the cameras daily. You’re a star BA, without you the club would still be in a mess.

    Regardless of what happens with Hayne next season, BA will have my respect.

    • As Madge had mine but in a results oriented business the support of the fans (and members – for a privileged few) means nothing. If BA does not bring success he will be shown the door just like all other coaches. Des Hasler still has one of the best coaching records in the game but that did not save him when he failed to deliver in successive seasons, just like Madge. For the record I think BA is a very good coach (as are Madge, Hasler, Cleary and Toovey but they were all shown the door).

  3. Hayne takes a huge pay cut to go back to Parra. Smart move by BA and he is the man to get them a 2018 prem … but they will have to get past us first.
    Good signing Parra !!

    • A cap with a “ceiling extension” vs A cap with “no ceiling” at all. Should be interesting! Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

      • Well they rorted the cap won the spoon , Parra woke up and said at least this time the spoon won’t cost as much 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 your on half the money Jarrod we’re not silly , you can’t pull that one again 😂😂😂😂😂

  4. During BA tenure he has made the tough and necessary calls and so far so good. Hayne and T-rex are both big calls for season coming and fans and club will be expecting results along the line of this year or better. BA has wasn’t the right to sign these guys and as fans we just have to trust this decision. Good luck Eels

  5. This is a annoying ZT I have tried to make comments a few times and my comment has not been posted. It has contained nothing that a censor should have vetted.

    • @ tommy

      Hence my problem with my reply to you before. I tried to post a question about Denis Pittard tackling Graeme Langlands (ended up changing his name to “Changa” in case that was the reason). I posted it on the “Hayne signs” story:

      I’m hoping you, chalky, pedro someone out there with a few more years experience than myself might remember. I have not been able to research it thus far.

      WC Final not far off now. D-Day for Pappa Smurf only he isn’t the one storming the beaches but instead is inside his little “bunker” ready to sleep through another game. 😉

    • Might be wrong but I think it was the 1971 GF it was a long time ago though. Oz will win but I think the poms may surprise with their defence just not enough points in them. If it is half as good as the girls final we are in for a treat. I hope the Aussies win but the purest in me thinks that an English win would do wonders for the game as a whole.

      • Just finished watching the women’s final. What a cracker! Both sides know how to tackle, driving using the shoulder rather than jumper grabbing. There were some big tackles too in that game.

        As for my question about the game, I don’t think it was the 1971 GF because I remember my uncle telling me that the Dragons were out but Souths were going through to the final. Certainly there was no lap of honour or trophy/shield presentation.

        It could have been the semi-final between the Rabbitohs vs the Dragons in 1967 (Souths won 13-8) but I would have been 3 months short of turning 2 yrs old so that is doubtful. In that instance Souths went straight through to a GF birth.

        I doubt it was the final in 1968 Dragons vs Rabbitohs as Souths won 20 – 8 and that last ditch try saving tackle that came in the last minutes would not have had any effect on the result of the game and this one saved the game. Souths went through to play Manly in the GF.

        It wasn’t 1969 because the Dragons and the Rabbitohs did not meet each other in the finals that year. The same thing happened in 1970.

        The result in the 1971 GF was 16 – 10 and that was when tries were worth 3 points so a converted try would have brought the Dragons to 16-15. I read through the Wiki review of the highlights of the game and this couldn’t be it. I am still at a loss.

        chalky help me mate! Any ideas?

    • It is frustrating to no end… maybe ZT could look at telling us what words are keeping the post from going through rather than just not posting it.

  6. He will be the buy of the year..
    he always wanted to play for the eels again
    It’s always been a dream of he’s…

    Lock it in Eddie
    Buy of the year

    • At least until there is another DREAM to follow or he is confronted with disciplinary measures that sours his commitment to the team and the club. Hayne has become the Martn Luther King Jnr of RL in an ironic way; “I have a dream!” 😉

Comments are closed.