Australian Super Rugby 'Salary Cap' from 2012

[TOCC]

Still some finer points which need to be ironed out by the sounds of things, but i think such a proposal is absolutely essential for equality across the Super franchises in Australia.

NSW fans will probably have the biggest gripe with this since they have the most to lose and haven't experienced the player vacuum that the other franchises have.

Australian Super 15 clubs will soon enter into new salary cap era

WALLABY Adam Ashley-Cooper has agreed to become a Waratah for the next two years but the deal could be one of the last of its kind after details of new ARU contracting protocols and rugby's first salary cap were revealed.

After re-signing with the ARU last month, Ashley-Cooper told Brumbies teammates yesterday he was moving to NSW to be closer to his Sydney-based partner and his family on the Central Coast, and for a fresh change.

Ashley-Cooper's move after six years in Canberra added another thoroughbred to the Waratahs' well-stocked stable but NSW's strength may not last long under a salary cap and contract protocol to be introduced in 2012.

A document seen by The Daily Telegraph reveals ARU plans to cut player wages with a $4.4 million salary cap at Super Rugby level next year, which will then be cut back to $4.1 million from 2013.

The money must be spread between 30 members of a "core playing squad" and five players on rookie contracts.

Most states currently carry between 38-40 full-time players in their squads.

Where an unofficial cap of around $150,000 to $160,000 existed previously for individual Super Rugby contracts, states may now pay a player as much as they like but, like the NRL, must compensate elsewhere to fit all players under the cap.

The minimum wage in the main squad will stay at $60,095, meaning many mid-range wages will be trimmed.

The ARU protocols also stipulate that they will now not begin negotiating with any players for top-up money until after a deal has been agreed in principle (though not legally) between the player and province.

This is a move no doubt designed to get the states to compete and share more of the costs for elite players with their $4.4 million annual grant, and cut back on a bloated group of players receiving top-up money.

About 50 players now receive top-up money and ARU boss John O'Neill is keen to trim it back to 35.

The grey world of third-party player payments may become even murkier, however, with the protocols declaring that all deals "sourced, facilitated, serviced or guaranteed" by the franchise would count under the salary cap, but those not linked will remain outside the "maximum contribution" cap.

The ARU will allow team sponsors to pay five players up to $30,000 each as a marquee-like concession. The ARU summary document says the new protocols are to "protect the long-term financial health and viability" of Super sides, and to spread talent around.

With the stronger states often accused of warehousing talent at the expense of the weaker ones, the distribution of talent is hoped to be achieved by reducing squad sizes and the creation of a transparent "contracting window" in September.

During the window, franchises must provide a list to the ARU of players they've yet to contract, who will then go in a pool for all states to view and bid for players on 12-month contracts.

The protocols will also open avenues for foreign players and possible private money to lure them to Australia by ruling that they will go into the cap at the average fee of $137,000 regardless of wage.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...w-salary-cap-era/story-e6frey4i-1226030366024

 

[Newb]

this topic still seems curious to me. perhaps i'm just ill-informed about it.

i don't see the point of agreeing to something like this if all SANZAR super teams aren't doing something similar. are the others already? there should be equal footing in the comp and this reads like the ARU is the sole participator. how much do the blues/saders/bulls/stormers spend on player payments? if they're not in check, the aussie teams are only limiting themselves in the comp vs the other conferences.

if this actually accomplishes it's goal of making the aussie teams more equal, what will the conference standings look like? a bunch of mediocre records perhaps as they beat each other up in the intra-conference games? you could see the top team make the playoffs and maybe none of the others because their records aren't good enough for the 3 wild card spots. that's not ideal.

now i agree that player log jams and overstocking is bad practice in general. don't the kiwis use a unprotected player draft system? i like the idea of that, though i guess you then have blokes being uprooted from say sydney to perth which is no small change. still, player development depends on getting game time, and not through injuries or being shuffled to some position they're not meant to play. the positional merry-go-round shits me to no end.

also, let's say some players need to leave their teams because of this. which way do you think they're most likely to go? from sydney and brisbane to perth and melbourne or the other way around? that's fine, because that is where the most available playing spots are. but it's in effect taking away from the incentive perth and melbourne have to develop their own club/junior systems, which is a big reason those franchises were formed. spreading the game, etc. hopefully they continue to regardless.

 

[waratahjesus]

the thing about spreading talent is, it means no australian team will ever win super rugby.
i know people will just point the finger and say im a tahs fan, but if this is policed it doesnt matter who im a fan of, we may as well not be competing.

 

[vidiot]

My concern is that we will hasten the spread of talent, all right - ARU talent to overseas.

 

[Scotty]

the thing about spreading talent is, it means no australian team will ever win super rugby.
i know people will just point the finger and say im a tahs fan, but if this is policed it doesnt matter who im a fan of, we may as well not be competing.

That doesn't necessarily follow. Brumbies had one of the best playing lists last year of all super teams yet never looked world beaters. A lot more goes into winning a title than the sum of the individual players.

Also some players would take a pay cut to play in a good side under a good coach rather than move states - look at league and the likes if the broncos.

Imo our limited number of super titles would have more to do with depth across the board in Australian rugby and lack of opportunities for players to get pro gigs rather than depth in individual teams.

It looks like a reasonable way to go to me. More onus on the super club to control negotiations and player lists. Less complicated process with the aru staying out of it initially. Not sure how it will work practically though - would prefer if the aru gave an extra say 1M to each club for them to use for players and made it so there were no player top ups at all (only match payments when you played for the wallabies).

 

[fatprop]

So has the players association agreed to have their wages limited?

Will O'Neil have his wages limited as well?

 

[waratahjesus]

The broncos were successful cos they where the only qld side for a great number of years and there juniors didn't want to go to a sydney club, as soon as competition came in there performances and playing list came back to the pack.

I agree we need to develop more talent but I see no reason not to have a couple of strong franchises competing at the top and the other three developing, the goal would have to be working out a way to keep the young playing groups together so that the franchises rotate in and out of developing.

Money doesnt buy success, all you hav to look at is the force and there spending of a few years back to see that. But as a tah fan when you look around, it's going to cost a player a lot of money to pay rent or buy in Sydney compared to the other teams, it could mean a lot of mid level players look elsewhere for quality of life

 

[louie]

Smells to much like NRl and all the problems that go on with salary capping. It stinks and i don't like it.

 

[jay-c]

how bout we win a super15 title first before we make it harder on ourselves

 

[Bullrush]

Here's how it's done in NZ:

Collective Agreement
In 2005, the NZRPA and the NZRU signed the second ever Collective Agreement governing the terms and conditions of the employment of professional rugby players in New Zealand.
The Collective Agreement is an agreement which has changed the landscape of professional rugby in New Zealand, particularly as it relates to the relationship between the New Zealand Rugby Players Association (representing the players) and the New Zealand Rugby Union (representing the Rebel Sport Super 14 franchises and provincial unions).

The agreement recognises the need to align the interests of the players and the NZRU, combine their respective strengths and create a strong sense of partnership and shared purpose.

The agreement reflects a desire to reward players for excellent performance (both on and off the field), encourage player retention and to reward loyalty.

Key aspects of the Agreement include:
The Collective Agreement covers all professional players in New Zealand. It came into force on 1 January 2006 and ends on 31 December 2008, a term of three full years.
The agreement was reached at the conclusion of 12 months of discussions involving representatives from the New Zealand Rugby Union (NZRU), provincial unions and the New Zealand Rugby Players Association (NZRPA).
The Collective Agreement covers players contracted for the All Blacks, Rebel Sport Super 14 squads, Super 14 wider training groups, the New Zealand Sevens squad and the Air New Zealand Cup.
The NZRU remains the sole employer of professional players in New Zealand, with players seconded to provincial unions.

Revenue Sharing
There is a revenue sharing arrangement between the NZRU and the players at a national level. In each of four contract years (2005 – 2008 ) 32.41% of NZRU player generated revenue is set aside in a player payment pool and applied for the benefit of players (contracted to play for Super 14 rugby franchises and/or the NZRU). The revenue sharing arrangement does not extend to provincial unions or the Air New Zealand Cup.


Property and Promotions
Subject to certain exemptions including broadcasting rights and a linked marketing campaign, use of the players’ property must involve groups of three (3) or more players in association with the names, logos or uniforms of New Zealand teams (and in a manner which identifies the player as a member of a New Zealand team).
Players are able to perform personal promotions as long as they notify the NZRU. The NZRU may object to the personal promotion on certain grounds including if the personal promotion conflicts with a sponsor and the NZRU can demonstrate a significant negative financial impact on the current or future revenue of the NZRU, the player’s Super 14 rugby franchise or his provincial union. The NZRU may also object if the promotion is in TV, radio or print media and involves three (3) or more players.
Players may write publications (i.e. write an article, book or other publication or provide commentary or critique) as long as they notify the NZRU in the manner prescribed above.
The agreement has established a commercial merchandise programme (for example signed memorabilia, computer games, videos, trading cards, novelties etc involving players). In respect of team based products (more than three (3) players), the players involved receive 50%, and the NZRU receives 50% of net revenue, and in respect of player based products (three (3) or less) the players involved receive 80%, and the NZRU receives 20%, of the net revenue. Individual player consent is required for player based products.

NZRU Contracting Environment
At all levels the players receive retainers which are payable for the term of a player’s contract regardless of selection, non-selection, injury, illness or suspension (subject to certain limitations) i.e. guaranteed retainers.
Players contracted to the NZRU for the purposes of Rebel Sport Super 14 rugby receive a minimum guaranteed retainer of $65,000/year in addition to their provincial union payments. Previously this $65,000 was dependant on selection. Players contracted at this level are on NZRU Contracts.
In addition to his NZRU retainer a player is eligible to receive NZRU team assembly Fees. NZRU team assembly fees equal across all players selected to teams as follows: All Blacks ($7500/week); Junior All Blacks ($3500/week); New Zealand Trial teams ($2000/week) and New Zealand Maori ($2000/week).
NZRU Sevens Contract guaranteed retainer bands start at $25,000/year (plus tournament fees) with at least three players to receive at least $45,000/year (plus tournament fees). Tournament fees remain at $2,000/tournament. These payments are in addition to a player’s provincial union payments. Fifteen players will be contracted as full time Sevens players each year.


Tier 1: Players who have played less than four (4) IRB Sevens World Series tournaments at the commencement of that contract year $25,000
Tier 2: Players who have played four (4) or more IRB Sevens World Series tournaments at the commencement of that contract year $35,000
Tier 3: Elite Sevens players (as determined by the NZRU) of which there must be at least three (3) $45,000+





The agreement formalises the Rebel Sport Super 14 rugby franchise wider training groups which has resulted in NZRU Wider Training Group Contracts for at least a further 35 players from outside the Rebel Sport Super 14 rugby squads, with retainer bands ranging from $15,000 per annum through to at least $30,000 per annum. These payments are in addition to a player’s provincial union payments.


Tier 1: Developing Air New Zealand Cup player
(1-2 years) / U19 player / U21 player
$15,000-$20,000

Tier 2: Established Air New Zealand Cup player
(3+ years)
$20,000-$25,000

Tier 3: Developing previous Rebel Sport Super 12/14 rugby player
(1-2 years)
$25,000+

Tier 4: Established Rebel Sport Super 14 rugby player
(3+ years) / ’Next Best’ player
$30,000+




Players selected for the 2007 Rugby World Cup will be eligible for a $100,000 bonus ($35k on winning the semi and $65k on winning the final).
Players who do not fall within the above contracts who the NZRU are looking to retain will be on an NZRU Interim Contract .

Provincial Union Contracting Environment
Players will be contracted by their provincial union on either a Provincial Union Contract or a Provincial Union Development Contract .
Each provincial union in the Air New Zealand Cup must contract at least 26 players on a minimum guaranteed retainer of $15,000 per annum. Any player on a Provincial Union Contract must be on a minimum $15,000 guaranteed retainer.
Any replacement players called into a Air New Zealand Cup team must receive a minimum payment of $1000/week during the week they are assembled.
A player contracted at provincial union level who has never previously been selected to a Rebel Sport Super 14 rugby team will automatically be available for selection (unless the player chooses otherwise), and, unless otherwise negotiated, default to a one year $65,000 NZRU contract (paid over 14 months from 1st November) upon selection to a Rebel Sport Super 14 rugby team.
The agreement has seen the introduction of a salary cap at Air New Zealand Cup level (subject to Commerce Commission authorisation) set at $2m in 2006 and increasing with the CPI over each of the three years.
The introduction of a new provincial union transfer period that runs from 1st October until one week after the Rebel Sport Super 14 rugby final in the following year. No transfer fees for players transferring between Air New Zealand Cup, provincial unions or limits on player numbers will apply. However transfer fees will continue to apply for players moving from Division 1 to Air New Zealand Cup unions.
The agreement contains loan criteria which will result in each provincial union being able to loan/borrow an unlimited number of players for the purposes of the Air New Zealand Cup, as long as no more than six (6) loan players appear in a playing squad of 22. No loan may take place without the player’s individual agreement.

Is the big difference between the two countries simply that Australia doesn't have an NPC competition?

 

[Torn Hammy]

This is something that should be developed with players, not leaked to the media as a done deal.

 

[Slim 293]

I don't like this at all.

And I'm a supporter from one of the least wealthy Australian teams.

As already suggested this will push players overseas.

Also, with the expanded Super rugby competition it's no good having restrictions on the squad sizes.

This is however a Terrorgraph article so it shouldn't be taken too seriously. Also, RUPA will and should fight this if it is ever proposed.

 

[liquor box]

I think if there is a cap that could lead to more player movements then we should also have a draft where a percentage of any contract signed goes to the "original" club/school/state/franchise for their work in training and developing the player. This would mean that if another situation occured where a team like the force decimated the Reds then at least the Reds would have recieved a financial incentive for losing their players.

This system also means that if you support and train a lot of juniors then you get rewarded for it.

 

[fatprop]

In principal I just disagree with monopolistic management groups colluding to limit employees wages and their ability to gain employment where they chose.

This is all about O'Neil wanting to limit employee wages, and their opportunity to gain income via third party endorsements (which essentially limits the pot for the ARU & franchises have in sponsorship).

While I understand that funding the of the players wage bill is not a bottomless well, I would prefer to see some honesty.

In reality we will be giving overseas clubs opportunities to shop and I will see a "Salary Cap" as a good idea when the ARU's management has one as well, maybe with the players association setting the cap.

 

[waratahjesus]

I still fail to see how it makes sense. If the ARU is giving a grant to every club, then why do they carenwhatbfranchises pay above that, they should justnsay there not going to bail anyone out anymore and it will sort itself out

 

[#1 Tah]

The system wasnt broken, so why are they trying to fix it?

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

I'm totally against salary caps. In what other industry (other than government) do we allow employee salaries to be artificially restricted by effectively decree? That's the moral case.

The practical case is that it's a waste of time, doesn't spread talent out anywhere near as much as people think it does and in this case it will simply drive a number of players overseas. The players quite rightly will try to secure the biggest deal possible for themselves, knowing full well that their career will be a lot shorter than most of us. I know they can do other jobs after footy, but it's a rare player who can make as much or more in the "civilian" world post retirement.

I think we're cutting our own throats with this plan. The AFL and NRL can get away with it, because they know the players don't many options outside of their competition. Rugby is different and that needs to be recognised.

 

[Ash]

I actually tend to agree with what they are trying to achieve, but remain a bit confused and really need to see the details.

For starters, having extra ARU top-ups separate from the salary cap for Wallabies just adds confusion and makes managing squads harder. If the ARU is spending, say, an extra $2M on top-ups, then add, say, $400k to each team's budget. Makes more sense to me, otherwise Wallabies (the better players) will get high compensation from teams as the teams offer better salaries to top players.

Secondly, $4.4M and then $4.1M is way too small for a squad of ~38 pro-rugby players, top-ups aside, even accounting for 5 rookies @ $60k each (although I think there'll be more than that as that includes the pro-academy?).

Thirdly, the 3rd party sponsorship section of $30k for 5 players is also really weak. They'd be better off using the A-league method of 1 or 2 marquee players outside the cap.

I can see the reason they need something like this to control spiralling costs, especially as somehow they've hit 50 players with ARU top-ups. The whole top-up system is flawed.

 

[Bowside]

I dont like it at all. Instead of having a cap to make the competition more equal, I would rather see the aru spend money on development of the player base in the smaller franchises. It is fair enough for the Force and Rebels to sign blokes who arnt getting a run in QLD and NSW, but they shouldn't be taking top players, they should be developing their own. The plan also further kills off state based loyalties and may lead to less real intensity in the long run.

I dont know if any of you read it, but I liked the idea in the paper the otherday about having professional expanded u20 academies in each franchise to provide a wider young playing group and alternative to toyota cup. The article wasnt clear about size, but obviously in the short term QLD and NSW would have larger ones as they have a much larger talent pool.

 

[Richo]

Isn't shrinking fully-paid squad size a bad idea when the Super Rugby season is longer and injuries are already crippling teams? Or am I misreading that part of the deal?

Btw, I would note that it's not clear what sort of document the Tele has seen. Is it an actual proposal or just someone's doodling around for an extreme reduction? Not really clear from the article how far progressed this is.