Twoilms
Trevor Allan (34)
He's been pretty good at the basics for a change. He's even a semi functional lineout option these days.
The Wallabies Thread
- Thread starter KOB1987
- Start date
He's been pretty good at the basics for a change. He's even a semi functional lineout option these days.
Interesting Cheika specifically said "We know what he brings" and he wasn't in the larger "look at" squad, but that players outside that are definitely in the mix, and that he was impressed with what Higgers was doing at the Reds. I wouldn't be assuming he is getting overlooked just yet.
Scrubber2050
Mark Ella (57)
He was Impressed with Gilly as well.
Chek will "encourage" all fringe players to stay around thinking they are in the mix. And if a few injuries they might get a gig. I reckon all coaches would do the same thing
Smarter fringie players discount his musings and head overseas for some cash, irrespective of what Chek says to them privately.
Chek will "encourage" all fringe players to stay around thinking they are in the mix. And if a few injuries they might get a gig. I reckon all coaches would do the same thing
Smarter fringie players discount his musings and head overseas for some cash, irrespective of what Chek says to them privately.
Highlander35
Steve Williams (59)
http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/r...l/news-story/b4654d6b9ae8df03f5ce95086bea9ec7
Yeah...
Can't possibly expect to stay based on that.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Yeah...
Can't possibly expect to stay based on that.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
$1 million? For what period? Even the NZRU couldn't match that. Pretty amazing money for a player just back from injury. If he's really being offered that for anything less than 3 years he would be mad not to.
House is on Fire
Frank Nicholson (4)
It's not a million a year. Believe the deal is 750,000 per year, and a 1+1 contract term.
The deal was agreed to in principle months ago, before SANZAAR decided to cut the competition down to 15 teams.
It's a purely financial decision, and one that is pretty hard to turn down.
upthereds#!
Peter Johnson (47)
Wow! That's bloody good money. He'd be mad not to take it, at the age of 22.
Twoilms
Trevor Allan (34)
At any age!
Micheal
Alan Cameron (40)
That'd put him in the top 5 or so paid players in Australia (maybe higher, I don't know the exact figures).
The ARU simply can't compete with that money - its got nothing to do with Cheika or the Wallabies.
What would the transfer fee be payable for?
Under sports with transfer fees he'd be a free agent and no former team would be eligible for a payment.
Bring in a transfer fee system and what? The ARU picks 5 blokes a year they have under contract and tells them that instead of going on the EOYT and having a break over Summer you're heading to Japan so we can pocket an extra $250k. Don't worry, you'll get an extra $500k out of the deal.
There are pros and cons of transfer fees and invariably the big teams get the biggest payments because they warehouse young players.
Under sports with transfer fees he'd be a free agent and no former team would be eligible for a payment.
Bring in a transfer fee system and what? The ARU picks 5 blokes a year they have under contract and tells them that instead of going on the EOYT and having a break over Summer you're heading to Japan so we can pocket an extra $250k. Don't worry, you'll get an extra $500k out of the deal.
There are pros and cons of transfer fees and invariably the big teams get the biggest payments because they warehouse young players.
Highlander35
Steve Williams (59)
Exactly. I see Wamb and a small number of others talk about transfer fees all the time, and the most important thing about them is that the player has to be under contract in the first place.
Now, if you want WR (World Rugby) to put in some sort of development fee for out of contract players who have both received significant investment and are U23 or so moving between Unions, (or clubs or whatever the fuck because we're not Football and the exact same structure doesn't work) that's slightly different.
But transfer fees mean putting younger and younger players onto longer and longer contracts, having minimum transfer fee thresholds built in to contracts, regular renewing of contracts at least 18 months to 2 years before expiration, and fundamentally, a willingness to sell a contracted player, and for the player to be willing to go. So then you probably have to modify the Gits rule to say that any player transferred remains Wallabies eligible, but a player leaving on a free transfer isn't.
And then no clubs would offer transfer fees because why would you pay €500k-€1M to the ARU/Waratahs to sign Michael Hooper when he's going to be unavailable for the start of your season, over the Autumn Tours (when you want you Internationals to cover for National selection) and potentially your finals?
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Now, if you want WR (World Rugby) to put in some sort of development fee for out of contract players who have both received significant investment and are U23 or so moving between Unions, (or clubs or whatever the fuck because we're not Football and the exact same structure doesn't work) that's slightly different.
But transfer fees mean putting younger and younger players onto longer and longer contracts, having minimum transfer fee thresholds built in to contracts, regular renewing of contracts at least 18 months to 2 years before expiration, and fundamentally, a willingness to sell a contracted player, and for the player to be willing to go. So then you probably have to modify the Gits rule to say that any player transferred remains Wallabies eligible, but a player leaving on a free transfer isn't.
And then no clubs would offer transfer fees because why would you pay €500k-€1M to the ARU/Waratahs to sign Michael Hooper when he's going to be unavailable for the start of your season, over the Autumn Tours (when you want you Internationals to cover for National selection) and potentially your finals?
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
RoffsChoice
Jim Lenehan (48)
His quality has always shown as a specialist assistant, and been burried when a head coach. Would definitely enjoy seeing him in the national set-up.
How did he go at his previous gig? I haven't really followed NH coaching ranking tables much.
Micheal
Alan Cameron (40)
Not that well by all accounts - his departure from Gloucester was a mutual decision. It appears he falls into the Michael Foley mould - a capable specialist coach (e.g. forwards) but maybe not enough personality / nous to steer the entire ship.
Rumours are he could be applying for the Brumbies HC role. I think that'd be a shame. The Wallabies need a forwards coach and I think Cheika would be excited to get him on board.
Did their forwards go OK? Genuine question, I wouldn't have a clue. Or are we basing it on how he was before he left Australia?