Higgers to the Rebels
- Thread starter barbarian
- Start date
- Status
RedsHappy
Tony Shaw (54)
Funny, but oh so wrong. We always admired and still do Higgers; you and Bob D were the long-standing haters.
It's the whacko system that's seemingly prohibited the Reds from retaining him at market value, that is the object of many of our loathings. So the curve should plot 'respect for salary system as equitable and well thought through'. We await this week's PTT video and hope it features our hero, Higgers.
Understandable, as the chart indicates - you're barely out of the man crush phase
FiveStarStu
Bill McLean (32)
It is technically true that, unless the EBA is renegotiated, the Rebels won't be subject to the salary cap. The terms of the original EBA will just continue, and as we didn't exist then, we won't be a party to it.
But there's at least two reasons why they will be:
1. We don't have as much cash as everyone thinks we do. Seriously. The franchise was run out of a basement at VISY Park for a while. Combine that with a big first-year loss and we're not Warren Buffetting anything.
2. We don't have much control over when the ARU and RUPA sign an EBA. As soon as they do we're subject to it anyway.
Anyway, great to sign Higgers. He'll never be another Gary *man-swoon* but we need a General at the back of the scrum.
A
AlexH
Guest
I found this bar graph on the same website you got yours from...
Attachments
T
TOCC
Guest
I have absolutely no drama with Higgers signing with the Rebels and earning his true market value..
J
Jiggles
Guest
I still can't find anything that has actually confirmed the move yet...
Troy
Jim Clark (26)
The rugby club this evening confirmed that the rebels have said he has put pen to paper on a three year deal!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Troy
Jim Clark (26)
Re Delve, and no doubt I'll be corrected here, but from one of the podcasts where he was interviewed, it sounded like he wanted to stay but the rebels weren't coming to the party?
Surely if he's that instrumental hey would have tried to keep him, he has been fantastic for them! Add to that they still have what 6 or 8 internationals they can sign for next year?
Unless of course they were already in positive talks with Higgers?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Surely if he's that instrumental hey would have tried to keep him, he has been fantastic for them! Add to that they still have what 6 or 8 internationals they can sign for next year?
Unless of course they were already in positive talks with Higgers?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
No4918
John Hipwell (52)
Could they be stupid enough to announce that twice and be wrong?? Hope yes, think not.
meatsack
Ward Prentice (10)
I like the NBA rules with salary caps, especially the "Larry Bird" exception. Basically if a team has a player for 3 years, they can exceed the cap to keep them. It encourages other teams to go after the young guns and develop them.
In that scenario Schatz would get a starting position earlier and Higgers would stay with the Reds, not all bad right?
In that scenario Schatz would get a starting position earlier and Higgers would stay with the Reds, not all bad right?
meatsack
Ward Prentice (10)
While that may be the case, pretty sure Delve has officially announced he's going to France next year.
waratahjesus
Greg Davis (50)
W
Waylon
Guest
Love it
From the darkness came a voice of reason
The franchise should be able to pay players whatever they want as long as the budget is approved by an independent party ie the ARU
Communism is for minileague (NRL)
Karl
Bill McLean (32)
This whole situation is ridiculous. If the NZ and SA teams don't have a cap, neither should the Australian teams, and having a Cap apply to only 4 of them because the Rebels are privately owned is stupid. The caps don't work anyway - look at AFL and NRL. Rugby's point of difference in terms of attracting player talent could be this lack of a salary cap. If fiscal sustainability for clubs is the concern with overpaying players leading to financial collapse, then just make the clubs submit budgets each year with a 3 year forward looking projection with an independent certification of solvency and reasonableness in terms of the assumptions and projections. Then get the f**k out of their way and let them build teams and play rugby.
What a ridiculous dog's breakfast. The ARU is a disgrace.
The problem with all the arguments about the salary cap system holding back Australian teams is that no one really knows what the situation is with the other countries.
Do the New Zealand teams actually spend more on players than our teams do? I think the Crusaders wage bill is probably pretty high, but I'm betting that some of the other Kiwi franchises spend less on players than our teams do.
It would seem that the South African teams are potentially spending more on their players but that is a complete guess. We could find out that is actually wrong.
When the ARU is providing the bulk of the funding to actually pay players, they are always likely to want to control how much teams can spend on players. Otherwise they could put an argument forward that they could give poorer franchises more money to equalize them with the richer franchises that generate more revenue.
I think salary caps are a pretty necessary part of professional sport otherwise it turns into a system of haves and have nots. The salary cap system will only really be hurting Australian franchises if the South African and New Zealand franchises can spend vast amounts more.
I don't think we are losing players overseas anymore than New Zealand or South Africa are.
Do the New Zealand teams actually spend more on players than our teams do? I think the Crusaders wage bill is probably pretty high, but I'm betting that some of the other Kiwi franchises spend less on players than our teams do.
It would seem that the South African teams are potentially spending more on their players but that is a complete guess. We could find out that is actually wrong.
When the ARU is providing the bulk of the funding to actually pay players, they are always likely to want to control how much teams can spend on players. Otherwise they could put an argument forward that they could give poorer franchises more money to equalize them with the richer franchises that generate more revenue.
I think salary caps are a pretty necessary part of professional sport otherwise it turns into a system of haves and have nots. The salary cap system will only really be hurting Australian franchises if the South African and New Zealand franchises can spend vast amounts more.
I don't think we are losing players overseas anymore than New Zealand or South Africa are.
Ignoto
Peter Sullivan (51)
Over the past week or so I've given this some thought and I completely agree. I don't feel any ill-feelings towards Higgers for doing this.
What I've come to realise is, I'm more annoyed that we've spent a lot of time and effort in developing Higgers. In the last year or two he's really become impressive moreso this year than previous years. So naturally, I want the Reds to benefit from Higgers starting to utilize his potential after all, they deserve it as much as the fans do. We've put in the hard yards, while the Rebels reap all the benefits.
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).
en_force_er
Geoff Shaw (53)
New Zealand have a draft/catchment-area combo system, so they don't need a salary cap to keep things level.
That being said the Aussie salary cap is less of a leveller and more of a money saver, whereas in pretty much any other sport it's to keep the comp even.
That being said the Aussie salary cap is less of a leveller and more of a money saver, whereas in pretty much any other sport it's to keep the comp even.
- Status