Derpus
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Meh, even if he doesnt i wouldnt have been wrong.Bookmark this one please gents.
Meh, even if he doesnt i wouldnt have been wrong.Bookmark this one please gents.
Surely the irony isnt lost though on you though. Everyone complained about long term contracts for players we already know are very good whilst applaud a long term contract for a player who might be very good.I’m happy to see him given a 4 year coming contract.
Yeah - he could flop. It doesn’t look likely to me, but there are no certainties.
He could just as easily get much better again and command more money/more attention next time round.
As far as I have read he attracted a fair bit of interest - both from other teams and league. Would I rather the Reds yield to market forces based on what they know - ie that he had a bloody good year and looks every bit a long term starter - or that they run the gauntlet with a lessor offer and he goes the way of Banks. I’ll take the former - but acknowledge it’s not without risks.
Awesome news and I guess you have to have long term contracts to retain players these days but he is still a kid, if he stays at his current ability is he deserving of a spot for the next four years
Surely the irony isnt lost though on you though. Everyone complained about long term contracts for players we already know are very good whilst applaud a long term contract for a player who might be very good.
Oh well.
Luke Beauchamp has signed with Houston in MLR. Any good?
If this eventuates i don't see how it's any different to the Hooper situation (or Folau, or AAA, etc). Would clearly be the incumbent for however many years to come.Think the main issue with Hooper's 5 year contract is what it potentially does for any up and coming 7 in the country, take the Liam Gill option and head OS as you feel the pathway at home is blocked.
Bit different with an up and comer who is not considered top of the food chain. ( assuming he is not on massive money )
Four years a bit of a risk for both parties , could flop ( unlikely ) or could be the best in his position in another year and not getting paid enough .
First choice tighthead wouldn't be on much less than Folau or Hooper.For me the Hooper and Folau signings were a concern because of their age AND because of the size of the RA top up they command. I would think AAA and Petaia would not have a top up anywhere near the size of Hooper/Folau. So the risk with the AAA/Petaia signings sits largely with the Brumbies/Reds. And these two guys will be decent super rugby players even though their form my fluctuate. Also their signings don't scream to other contenders that the pathway is blocked.
With Hooper/Folau the risk sits very much RA - form at the top level can be harder to maintain - but the size of the investment almost means the Wallabies have to play them - otherwise we are in Quade 2.0 territory. and for this reason it also means others would see the pathway blocked.
on top of this the super teams have a better view of who their coaches will be - Wallabies will be recruiting a new coach in 2019 and no one knows what direction that coach will take - again leading us to a Quade 2.0 scenario, albeit where Hooper/Folau are receiving RA top ups to just play Super rugby for potentially 2 or 3 years.
Captain and most marketable player should get the most money.i have no insights to these top up amounts, but i would be surprised if his top up was even 70% of Hooper/Folau who are Test Captain and Australian Rugby's biggest name, respectively.