Higgers to the Rebels

[wilful]

There are multiple reasons that we have a salary cap and I think they're pretty sound. Not knowing what the cap is, yeah well that's a problem. But it's aside the issue of having a properly constituted cap.

If we didn't have a cap then we may end up with the situation of english premier league where basically only a few teams can ever contest the result, the others will always be also-rans. Not good for football. Also, it ensures some fiscal discipline amongst the clubs, so they're not constantly going broke and having to be bailed out or replaced.

 

[I like to watch]

Wilful, a salary cap for only some teams in the comp does not keep thing equal.
It handicaps those teams that are regulated. Are the Aussie teams going so well they need to be handicapped?
Fiscal discipline is not related, many posters have suggested that ARU grants to be conditional on budgets and business plans being approved by the ARU. which incindently makes more sense than just limiting only one area of expenses.
ATM a franchise can still go broke staying under the cap, if the business is being poorly managed.

 

[en_force_er]

This is silly, the Aussie teams only select from the Aussie marketplace (other than 2 players at 4 of the teams and 6 at one).

This doesn't uneven the league because our 5 teams are still competing for the same player pool, just as they did before. Sure, Freddy Michalak is not going to play for an Aussie team with this cap in place but he never did anyway.

Basically, the same 5 sides are competing it's just there's less money now. We couldn't compete with $$$ in France/Japan before and we can't now, not much has changed.

 

[Braveheart81]

^ That's a really good point.

The salary cap would be far more of an issue if Australian, South African, and New Zealand players were free to play anywhere in the Super 15.

I also don't think we are losing key players to Europe with any discernable difference to New Zealand at least.

As I said previously, I would be surprised if the player salaries in Australia are lower than they are in NZ.

 

[I like to watch]

Higgers can't stay with the Reds due to this cap!
There was also talk that they couldn't fit both the 9 & the 10 under the cap!
If 4 of the sides are not permitted to sign players they want and can afford, then they are at a disadvantage to the other 11, who can sign whoever they want and can afford.
i thought that was self evident?

 

[Braveheart81]

Every other team has to live within a budget as well.

Clearly successful teams are going to increase their revenue as the Reds did after winning by selling a lot more memberships and game tickets.

If the ARU still gives every team $4m and says they can spend whatever they like on top of that, then the Reds keep using their increased revenue to buy better players (and retain all their stars) and teams like the Brumbies and Force and to a lesser extent Waratahs struggle because they can't increase their revenue and can't sign star players.

I for one think it is a much better system where there is some parity between our teams rather than creating a system of rich clubs and poor clubs (like the EPL for example) where some teams just won't be able to compete.

Like it or not, we have a system with 2 teams in non traditional rugby cities and 1 team in a small rugby city.

The bulk or players will always come from NSW and Qld and those players will naturally want to play for those teams as a first preference. If we don't have some sort of system that allows for those other teams to recruit players then they will forever be the weakest.

 

[Braveheart81]

Would it be a fairer system if the ARU said, fine, we'll do away with the salary cap but to make up for the fact that it is far easier for NSW and Qld to attract players, we'll give an extra million dollars a season to the Force and the Rebels and an extra half million to the Brumbies so they can be competitive in attracting players.

 

[barbarian]

Higgers can't stay with the Reds due to this cap!

Untrue.

He could easily stay with the Reds, but he would have to take a pay cut. Melbourne and France were offering more $$$, and frankly I would doubt the Reds could match that even if there was no salary cap (just going off past history here and a knowledge of the Reds current financial state).
.

 

[Bullrush]

Higgers can't stay with the Reds due to this cap!
There was also talk that they couldn't fit both the 9 & the 10 under the cap!
If 4 of the sides are not permitted to sign players they want and can afford, then they are at a disadvantage to the other 11, who can sign whoever they want and can afford.
i thought that was self evident?

The reason the other teams can afford the players they want is because they don't have a number of high calibre of players that demand higher salaries.

Who at the Force would be be getting the big bucks? Pocock, Sharpe....anyone else? Probably why they had the $$ to throw at Genia....

 

[en_force_er]

Higgers can't stay with the Reds due to this cap!
There was also talk that they couldn't fit both the 9 & the 10 under the cap!
If 4 of the sides are not permitted to sign players they want and can afford, then they are at a disadvantage to the other 11, who can sign whoever they want and can afford.
i thought that was self evident?

Let's not turn this into a flamewar. Anyway, I'll continue warily.

Higgers literally can stay at the Reds, he chose not to because the cap prevented him from getting money he can demand, which he no doubt weighed against other factors. The Reds have not got space with him because they have to fit in other quality players, this is not the literal aim of the cap but it is a perfectly fair biproduct.

So if all the other Super rugby unions can sign players they want and can afford hypothetically a wealthy union like the Cantabs or the Bulls should have the ABs/Boks running around for them and everyone else should be a development side. This is not the case. Sure, it might be unfair to have a Qld developed player playing for another side but the Whitelocks grew up in Manawatu, in all fairness should they not be playing for the Hurricanes? This is not a unique or new issue.

The sides are competing for players within an Australian context, the other 10 sides are competing with players within their own environment.

 

[waratahjesus]

I don't know why QLD fans are so upset, the Tahs are losing Dean Mumm to Europe for the same reason. It happens to every team.

 

[Set piece magic]

^^ ah yeah probably because Higginbotham is actually useful

 

[Braveheart81]

I don't know why QLD fans are so upset, the Tahs are losing Dean Mumm to Europe for the same reason. It happens to every team.

Gold WJ!

 

[Braveheart81]

^^ ah yeah probably because Higginbotham is actually useful

I think you missed the sarcasm which is dripping off every word.

 

[Set piece magic]

I think you missed the sarcasm which is dripping off every word.

My apologies, I did indeed. Ripper.

 

[Brisbok]

Let's not turn this into a flamewar. Anyway, I'll continue warily.

Higgers literally can stay at the Reds, he chose not to because the cap prevented him from getting money he can demand, which he no doubt weighed against other factors. The Reds have not got space with him because they have to fit in other quality players, this is not the literal aim of the cap but it is a perfectly fair biproduct.

So if all the other Super rugby unions can sign players they want and can afford hypothetically a wealthy union like the Cantabs or the Bulls should have the ABs/Boks running around for them and everyone else should be a development side. This is not the case. Sure, it might be unfair to have a Qld developed player playing for another side but the Whitelocks grew up in Manawatu, in all fairness should they not be playing for the Hurricanes? This is not a unique or new issue.

The sides are competing for players within an Australian context, the other 10 sides are competing with players within their own environment.

That actually does happen to some extent in South Africa. Except there are 3 wealthy unions - Stormers, Sharks and Bulls, and two not so wealthy unions - Cheetahs and Lions. All the best players inevitably end up at the wealthier teams. In the last few years the Lions have lost Bryan Habana, Jaque Fourie, Willem Alberts, Louis Ludik, Joe van Niekerk etc. to the wealthier unions. And the Cheetahs - I won't even start on the players their union has lost because the list could be an A4 page long!

There is no salary cap in South Africa and the salary bills at the Cheetahs and Lions would in all probability be less than half of those at the Stormers/Bulls/Sharks.

 

[kronic]

It's official, just received the press release, 2 year deal.

 

[Braveheart81]

I guess the difference in South Africa is that even though they are poorer, the Lions and Cheetahs are still in areas where rugby is popular.

If we forced the Force and Rebels to become feeder teams for the other three franchises by only giving them enough money to afford young players, then those franchises would struggle to build a fanbase.

Where we are trying to grow rugby in non-traditional rugby markets, we absolutely have to have an artificial mechanism to level the playing field.

 

[stoff]

I'll continue to get shirty with this whole premise until I see the Rebels spending time and money developing new and upcoming players (it worked for the Reds in 2010/2011 and the Brumbies in 2012).

I am getting sick of this attitude that the Rebels aren't developing players. The inaugural squad assembled less than 20 months ago and guys like Pyle and Jones have already come through. It is not as though the Reds or Brumbies didnt have established programs that allowed them to nurture the talent they brought through. How many of those guys who had breakout years had been at the clubs less than two years?

 

[Dumbledore]

That doesn't fit the narrative though, stoff, once again the poor Queenslanders are having their players poached. It's the only thing that's stopped them from winning at least as many titles as the Saders. Anyway, here's the actual press release. Pretty blah stuff.

Higginbotham signs two-year deal with the Rebels


The RaboDirect Rebels have signed outstanding Wallabies flanker Scott Higginbotham to a two-year deal, with the player set to join the Club for the 2013 season.

Higginbotham was an ever-present in the 2011 Reds team that won the Super Rugby title, playing a pivotal role in their success and finishing the season as their leading try-scorer.

Head Coach Damien Hill believes Higginbotham’s ability will compliment the skill set currently in the squad.

“Scott’s a current Test player who we’re confident will add to the culture of the Melbourne Rebels,” said Hill.

“He’s had an exciting last couple of seasons where he’s proved to be an aggressive, hard working player, excelling as a ball-runner with the versatility of covering 6 and 8.

“We believe Scott is a player whose best football is in front of him, he is without doubt a player on the rise, and we’re all very excited about the news he will be joining us next season.”

Standing at 195cm and weighing in at 110kg, Higginbotham is renowned for his incredible athleticism and world-class skills for such a big man.

He played his first Test for the Wallabies from the bench in a 59-16 thumping of the French in 2010, before getting his first start in the 2011 Tri-Series victory over South Africa in Durban.

Higginbotham has since gone on to play 11 Tests for Australia.