Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story
1. Castro has been approached with a very good 3 year deal which will probably take him through to the end of his playing days.
2. Having had the approach Leicester have sent their CEO to Toulon to negociate and subsequently determine whether it would be in the clubs best interests to let Castro go with a year still left on his contract (£££££'s)
3. If it is decided not to be in the clubs best interests to let him go early he will stay for another year.
At this level rugby is a business as well as a game so what's the problem?
Life can be unpredictable, so eat your pudding first!
Chobbsy wrote:... but everyone knows that Cockers is fickle
I find this accusation amusing (not that I'll admit to agreeing or disagreeing) - since the biggest complaint against him on the forum is that he is the opposite - too stubborn!
For when the One Great Scorer comes to write against your name,
He marks - not that you won or lost - but how you played the Game."
Oz has remarked on camera that if you fall out of favour down at Oval Park, then that's that.........he used the term 'face fit' so not about playing form.
Leicester Tigers 1995-
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
Fresh in my mind is Castro's impact away at Treviso when Cole was struggling. Those points late in that match were huge. Take those points away and where would we be right now..
jgriffin wrote:Oz has remarked on camera that if you fall out of favour down at Oval Park, then that's that.........he used the term 'face fit' so not about playing form.
This does often seem to be the case - and there have been numerous examples of discussions on here about favouritism over form/potential over the last few seasons.
In this particular case, it seems clear to me that Castro got all the big games two years ago, then last year they were mostly shared, and this year Cole is the starting player.... all of that fits true to the form of the two players involved, so (in this case) it does not appear to be a 'face fit' decision.
jgriffin wrote:Oz has remarked on camera that if you fall out of favour down at Oval Park, then that's that.........he used the term 'face fit' so not about playing form.
This does often seem to be the case - and there have been numerous examples of discussions on here about favouritism over form/potential over the last few seasons.
In this particular case, it seems clear to me that Castro got all the big games two years ago, then last year they were mostly shared, and this year Cole is the starting player.... all of that fits true to the form of the two players involved, so (in this case) it does not appear to be a 'face fit' decision.
I should think not in this case!
Leicester Tigers 1995-
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
Cockers would never let Castro go if it was not for the sallery cap. Castro is the highest paid player. We can't afford that wage as the none first choice. Cockerswill have to have paid more for parling the two youngs brothers etc.To balance the books he has to go. Also we get cash for the deal. Sadly nothing todo with dockers it's the system. Murphy maybe the last to only play for us in career. Possibly deacon the rest will all have to go when we can't afford them. Sad
jgriffin wrote:Oz has remarked on camera that if you fall out of favour down at Oval Park, then that's that.........he used the term 'face fit' so not about playing form.
We also know that Oz has an axe to grind with Cockers just like a few forum members. Some people refer to ESPN team as commentating like school kids, perhaps Oz is the school bully and Cockers the victim!
Of course this is my own opinion and other posters may have a different perceived factual viewpoint.
I'm not sure why people are comparing this situation to the 36 situation. The two are completely different.
36 was at the end of his contract, we were in a position to offer him an improved one, which we did, but were also at the mercy of other clubs. Castro meanwhile has another year to run on his, so we're in no position to offer him an improved deal until this time next year.
If a club comes calling for him, and he does indeed want to go, then it's up to the club to get the best deal for the club regarding compensation. The player matters little in this instance as he's already our player.
I'm sorry but what a load of tosh some people are spouting.... Castro leaving has got nothing to do with Cockers man management and all to do with Castro insisting that he starts.
Coley is playing better and deserves the no1 birth.
We all love Martin but he needs to be careful that he doesn't muck it all up by turning into a petulant child. He's made it clear he wants to leave (sad but understandable) and were trying to release him from his contract. This scenario happens the world over and not just a Tigers issue.
All Cockers is doing is staying true to his and the clubs beliefs, which for me is why we're such a great club unlike a few other clubs.
Castro confirmed as going to Toulon as per sky sports, clubs just need to sort out the transfer fee, if tigers get a nice fee for him then a good deal for a player who is ageing and on the decline!!
baz1664 wrote:Castro confirmed as going to Toulon as per sky sports, clubs just need to sort out the transfer fee, if tigers get a nice fee for him then a good deal for a player who is ageing and on the decline!!
Nothing confirmed yet, the stumbling block was never going to be Castro agreeing terms with Toulon, Boudjellal's wallet is clearly very big!! The issue is whether Toulon agree terms with Tigers and if Tigers can find a replacement, that said it is only a matter of time before the deal is confirmed by RC IMO.
Sad to see Castro go but Tigers are getting a good deal, especially with Balmain coming through.
