Melbourne Rebels Players - where are they going?

[Strewthcobber]

Doesn't make it any more appealing if there are other options... Can't think of an established player who's moved states for a 1yr deal tbh.

Are there other options?

 

[LeCheese]

Are there other options?

That's of course unique to each player, but clearly

 

[Strewthcobber]

That's of course unique to each player, but clearly

Other than Canham, everyone else who has a confirmed sport on a roster from the Rebels has moved for what is effectively a one year deal haven't they?

 

[Tomthumb]

The vast majority of that contracted core: Uelese, Canham, Daugunu, Tupou, Gibbon, Anderson, Salakaia-Loto, Leota, Fa'amausili & Lancaster, are established or breakthrough players who's performances either this year or over the course of the past several would not require them to take up a single season deal except by active choice.

Really? We seem pretty quick to crown players when they haven’t had much if any success

You would hope with all these guys that supposedly deserve multi year big money contracts that they would have some actual impact on winning at some stage

 

[LeCheese]

Other than Canham, everyone else who has a confirmed sport on a roster from the Rebels has moved for what is effectively a one year deal haven't they?

Many of them are returning home or to somewhere they have already spent an extended period of time. Obviously some will be happier to move for a short contract than others, and it's more understandable given the unique circumstances.

The comment I initially responded to suggested established players uprooting lives for a one-year contract (in 'normal' circumstances) is common. It simply is not.

 

[Bullrush]

Many of them are returning home or to somewhere they have already spent an extended period of time. Obviously some will be happier to move for a short contract than others, and it's more understandable given the unique circumstances.

The comment I initially responded to suggested established players uprooting lives for a one-year contract (in 'normal' circumstances) is common. It simply is not.

But this isn't normal. There is no club for a Rebel player to stay in Melbourne for. Players aren't getting asked to move on a whim. The club these players were contracted is broke.

If these guys are serious about being professional rugby players, they will hav to move - be it Sydney, Brisbane or somewhere else in the world.

 

[LeCheese]

But this isn't normal. There is no club for a Rebel player to stay in Melbourne for. Players aren't getting asked to move on a whim. The club these players were contracted is broke.

If these guys are serious about being professional rugby players, they will hav to move - be it Sydney, Brisbane or somewhere else in the world.

That's what I'm saying - this is an abnormal circumstance. Jimmy implied it was commonplace.

 

[Rebel man]

Putting aside all the other nonsense, it doesn't sound like extensions are forthcoming for anybody: just the establishment looking to take over existing 2nd or 3rd year of deals.

Can't possibly imagine why a player would perhaps think that moving to new city which is more expensive to live the same lifestyle in, without a job for your partner, needing to find a new place to live, typically still being away from any friends and family you've made, without any guarantee that you won't have to do the same thing again in 11-15 months time is not particularly appealing.

Exactly. RA is better paying them out and then letting clubs make them an offer

 

[TSR]

Exactly. RA is better paying them out and then letting clubs make them an offer

How is that a good option for RA?

 

[Tomthumb]

Exactly. RA is better paying them out and then letting clubs make them an offer

How in the world is that a good option for RA?

 

[Highlander35]

Really? We seem pretty quick to crown players when they haven’t had much if any success

You would hope with all these guys that supposedly deserve multi year big money contracts that they would have some actual impact on winning at some stage

Given your previous advocacy for exclusively performance based contracts AND a simultaneous domestic selection policy, despite the global and multi code factors affecting the sport, I would suggest that you opt out of contributing to this sort of discussion, lest you continue to embarrass yourself.

Regardless, I am not saying all of these players should or needed to be offered substantial long term deals within Australian Rugby. What I am suggesting is in an ordinary out of contract situation, many if not all of the contracted group, as established or breakout players, It is exceptionally unlikely that any one of these players, in addition to 1 year offers from other super rugby sides, would also have at least one offer of:

1 year extension from current side
2+ years extension from current side
2+ year new deal from other super rugby side
2+ year new deal from other international side.

The players know what they're entitled to under the CBA, and will quite reasonably hold out for outcomes that give them the support or the security that they feel they need.

 

[Jimmyjam]

Its about bargaining power. Players with decent market value will always look for the best conditions they can get to suit their needs.

'But the Tahs used to be good 10 years ago' isn't much of a bargaining chip.

My point was if the non Melbourne raised players have made a considered decision to sign and play for the rebels...(who have always been crap) you can hardly use 'the tahs are crap' as a reason for not wanting to go there. Pretty simple and hardly controversial, but somehow caused a few noses to go way out of joint

 

[Tomthumb]

Given your previous advocacy for exclusively performance based contracts AND a simultaneous domestic selection policy, despite the global and multi code factors affecting the sport, I would suggest that you opt out of contributing to this sort of discussion, lest you continue to embarrass yourself.

Regardless, I am not saying all of these players should or needed to be offered substantial long term deals within Australian Rugby. What I am suggesting is in an ordinary out of contract situation, many if not all of the contracted group, as established or breakout players, It is exceptionally unlikely that any one of these players, in addition to 1 year offers from other super rugby sides, would also have at least one offer of:

1 year extension from current side
2+ years extension from current side
2+ year new deal from other super rugby side
2+ year new deal from other international side.

The players know what they're entitled to under the CBA, and will quite reasonably hold out for outcomes that give them the support or the security that they feel they need.

Given the fact I never once advocated for exclusively performance based contracts, I would suggest that you opt out of talking rubbish, lest you continue to embarrass yourself

I get you like to act as some sort of player advocate on here, but my point was that some of you seem to expect so little from our players in terms of performance, yet love getting on the soap box talking about how proven these same players are and that they deserve this and that

With the lack of any on-field success from any Australian Super team in the last decade, it’s getting a bit tiresome constantly hearing about how much more money these guys should be getting and how hard it is for these guys to rent a new apartment

 

[Wilson]

My point was if the non Melbourne raised players have made a considered decision to sign and play for the rebels...(who have always been crap) you can hardly use 'the tahs are crap' as a reason for not wanting to go there. Pretty simple and hardly controversial, but somehow caused a few noses to go way out of joint

It was a shit take and you got rightfully rinsed for it.

If they made a "considered decision" then, why wouldn't they make one now? You don't reckon the players might have learnt something from the experience and be keen to avoid another dysfunctional setup? Or might want to return to a stable base at home after a year of stress and chaos?

 

[Brumby Runner]

I posted before that I think RA is taking a laissez-faire attitude to the placement of the ex-Rebels contracted players because they've realised they don't have the power or influence to direct players to go where they (RA) would like to see them. If that is so, then it would also explain why they are not offering contract extensions to those players (Canham aside apparently). Twelve months down the track and the market and salary cap will sort out the longer term futures of those players. In that case, I'd suggest the Reds could find themselves in an awkward situation as some of those one year empolyees they've gained from the Rebels' demise start to look for and receive better deals elsewhere, primarily overseas.

My only query if this is what is happening is how did the Reds get approval or dispensation, whatever, to lock in Canham on a longer term?


EDIT : even if something like this is happening, I believe we'll see a few or more longer term contracts being offered to entice players to the Waratahs in 2025 and beyond. It must be RA's top priority to see the Tahs at strength again and I don't think that will happen with only one year contracts on offer.

 

[Strewthcobber]

One potential reason that the players are sticking to the one year deals is that the Rebels were paying overs to attract them down south and the other Super Rugby teams aren't willing to match what they were paying on longer term deals

 

[Strewthcobber]

I posted before that I think RA is taking a laissez-faire attitude to the placement of the ex-Rebels contracted players because they've realised they don't have the power or influence to direct players to go where they (RA) would like to see them.

The CBA guarantees that RA will honour the player's contracts if one of the Super Rugby teams lose their right to participate, and also that RA can't force, direct or coerce a player to move to a team.

It's not really laissez-faire so much as operating as the agreements intend it to.

Remember also that the Reds and Force remain voting members, along with the state unions. They ultimately are represented by RA and the board and can insist on fairness

 

[TSR]

My point was if the non Melbourne raised players have made a considered decision to sign and play for the rebels...(who have always been crap) you can hardly use 'the tahs are crap' as a reason for not wanting to go there. Pretty simple and hardly controversial, but somehow caused a few noses to go way out of joint

I guess I just find it an odd statement given that it seems to be exactly what a lot of players are doing. Whatever your thoughts on their relative merits the 2024 Rebels appear to have far more appeal than the 2025 Tahs.

I’d say your statement is not controversial as such - it just doesn’t appear to be supported by facts.

Behind closed doors - who knows - but everything I’ve read suggests the Tahs have had very little appeal, but that they appear to have talked most of the players around.

 

[TSR]

I posted before that I think RA is taking a laissez-faire attitude to the placement of the ex-Rebels contracted players because they've realised they don't have the power or influence to direct players to go where they (RA) would like to see them. If that is so, then it would also explain why they are not offering contract extensions to those players (Canham aside apparently). Twelve months down the track and the market and salary cap will sort out the longer term futures of those players. In that case, I'd suggest the Reds could find themselves in an awkward situation as some of those one year empolyees they've gained from the Rebels' demise start to look for and receive better deals elsewhere, primarily overseas.

My only query if this is what is happening is how did the Reds get approval or dispensation, whatever, to lock in Canham on a longer term?


EDIT : even if something like this is happening, I believe we'll see a few or more longer term contracts being offered to entice players to the Waratahs in 2025 and beyond. It must be RA's top priority to see the Tahs at strength again and I don't think that will happen with only one year contracts on offer.

I’m guessing the Reds would have been free to contract Canham beyond the initial term of his contract but that only the initial period was covered by RA. I’m assuming it would be easy enough to fashion a contract to those terms wouldn’t it? Either for the Reds or for any of the other teams.

 

[Rebel man]

How in the world is that a good option for RA?

Better than having them potentially opt out.

Also from a player turn over standpoint, if they get 7 players to the Tahs like they want and they are all just there seeing out their last year before leaving it is going to be disruptive for the squad. While I know rugby the length of contracts are a lot smaller than in the AFL. But from experience you’d never look to bring a mature age player to you club on less than a 3 year deal