Aussie Player Exodus

[Marcelo]

I was thinking about this and I think that we won't beat the ABs again. That is, if now we can't beat the ABs with: AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), Sekope Kepu, James Horwill, Will Genia, Quade Cooper, Israel Folau, Nic White and others. After WC without them will be much harder

That is, they have more depth and their exodus is more gradual because their economy is better then their players get better wages and more benefits. Now the difference between our tight five and their tight five are too big. Without Kepu and Horwill the differences will be bigger

So this is our last chance to beat them: Rugby Championship 2015 or WC

 

[Forcefield]

We will beat them again. Most of those guys didn't really feature in the two games we played against New Zealand this year that easily could have gone in our favour.

New players will step up. Old players will return to our Super Rugby teams. The Force and Rebels academies will start increasing our player base. Life will continue.

If things get really shit, the ARU could opt to allow 2 non-Australian based Wallabies in the squad to cover areas of poor depth but not open a floodgate for an Aussie Exodus.

One thing that makes me wonder is whether a decreasing starting age for Super Rugby players (we seem to be recruiting and playing players from a younger age) is partially contributing to the situation. Are the wealthy clubs seeing these players and pouncing before the players hit their prime.

 

[Dave Beat]

Couple of extracts from today's tele;
p87 - Foley says "Thats the beauty of rugby being a world game, you can go over and experience new cultures and languages"
p94 - Bath offer is the fact the UK Power House only recently paid Souths $1m to allow Sam Burgess to return home.

ARU needs to accept that we have a true world game, and look at ways to benefit and growing from that exposure rather than fighting a battle that is difficult to win.

• I'm sure the ARU would appreciate a lazy $1m if a high class player signed up over seas - How good would that filtering down to the grass roots growing our base.
• Does the US (baseball) / UK (soccer) invest in the respective games out here in Aus - maybe the wealthy clubs offshore could see involvement out here?

Not sure but obviously it is a topic of concern for us all.

 

[fatprop]

It comes down to a magical nebulous calculation for the ARU, that is different for each player

How much discount off their real value is a wallaby jersey worth?

Some like Foley flag the proposition overseas opportunities, others flag the NRL.

But in essence it is the same calculation

 

[Bullrush]

because their economy is better

That must only apply to top rugby players and other highly paid individuals cos I can tell you it certainly isn't for most of the population.

Why do you think so many of us are here?!

 

[boyo]

Mate, I am waaaaayyyyy too busy looking up details of random former age group Wallaby squad members to type of the full word "Force"

Not too busy to type "waaaaayyyyy".

 

[Quick Hands]

One thing that makes me wonder is whether a decreasing starting age for Super Rugby players (we seem to be recruiting and playing players from a younger age) is partially contributing to the situation. Are the wealthy clubs seeing these players and pouncing before the players hit their prime.

Yes.

 

[Quick Hands]

Couple of extracts from today's tele;
p87 - Foley says "Thats the beauty of rugby being a world game, you can go over and experience new cultures and languages"
p94 - Bath offer is the fact the UK Power House only recently paid Souths $1m to allow Sam Burgess to return home.

ARU needs to accept that we have a true world game, and look at ways to benefit and growing from that exposure rather than fighting a battle that is difficult to win.

As things stand, there isn't enough money in rugby in the SANZAR countries for ARU, NZRU and SARU to offer players anything like what they can earn in Europe. So there is nothing that any of those unions can do to reduce the player exodus unless a way is found to bring more money into the game somewhere other than Europe.

A number of big economies have small to medium rugby involvement and are competitive at tier 2 level. I speak of Japan, Canada and the US. Having those economies part of a larger alliance featuring the SANZAR countries plus Argentina is one way of bringing more money into the game. Lot's of people are very negative about the possibility of this happening, but they are yet to advance any other method of stemming the exodus.

 

[Braveheart81]

As things stand, there isn't enough money in rugby in the SANZAR countries for ARU, NZRU and SARU to offer players anything like what they can earn in Europe. So there is nothing that any of those unions can do to reduce the player exodus unless a way is found to bring more money into the game somewhere other than Europe.

Surely the driving force behind this is that the three countries that for some time have consistently held the top 3 rankings in World Rugby produce more quality players than the countries below them and are therefore ripe targets for recruitment. The financial state of the ARU in particular means that there is a vast difference in salaries between players who are amongst the top 25 Wallabies and those who are just outside it even though there is very little difference in their playing ability in most cases. A few years ago (mostly because the ARU were living beyond their means), this next line of players were all paid much more because they also had guaranteed ARU top ups.

I don't think there is anything particularly different about younger players being recruited. The foreign clubs are still getting what they pay for. They're paying less for a player that is less developed in their career and generally they are lower ranked clubs. They're still only signing similar length contracts and the players re-enter the exact same market for a more lucrative contract a couple of years down the line when they are a better and more experienced player.

The greater availability of televised matches and youtube highlights make it far easier for teams to recruit from around the world. The available information about players is far greater than it was before.

 

[Quick Hands]

Surely the driving force behind this is that the three countries that for some time have consistently held the top 3 rankings in World Rugby produce more quality players than the countries below them and are therefore ripe targets for recruitment. The financial state of the ARU in particular means that there is a vast difference in salaries between players who are amongst the top 25 Wallabies and those who are just outside it even though there is very little difference in their playing ability in most cases. A few years ago (mostly because the ARU were living beyond their means), this next line of players were all paid much more because they also had guaranteed ARU top ups.

I don't think there is anything particularly different about younger players being recruited. The foreign clubs are still getting what they pay for. They're paying less for a player that is less developed in their career and generally they are lower ranked clubs. They're still only signing similar length contracts and the players re-enter the exact same market for a more lucrative contract a couple of years down the line when they are a better and more experienced player.

The greater availability of televised matches and youtube highlights make it far easier for teams to recruit from around the world. The available information about players is far greater than it was before.

Absolutely they are ripe targets for recruitment, but even if the ARU wasn't in financial strife rugby in Australia still wouldn't be able to compete financially with Europe. As an aside I know a few Frenchmen who despair at the amount of money paid to foreign players and wonder why it can't be spent on developing more French players - but that's another story.

The driving force is that it's easier to spend money signing ready made players than it is to develop your own. You buy the ready made guy, whether he's and international or a young guy, you know what you're going to get. The development road is cheaper, but you have to work really hard to get it going and you have to wait a few years to see the benefit.

 

[Bullrush]

I still think that young players who head overseas for the money just really aren't good enough for the Green and Gold - whether that's in their play or their mentality.

How many youngsters have left SS and gone to Europe and come back to demand an even higher premium at Super Rugby level?

To leave so early just says that they either don't back themselves enough to make it to higher honors OR they don't value those honors high enough to turn down the money now.

Either way, if they leave they simply open up an opportunity for someone who does want it.

 

[Braveheart81]

It's a globalised sport and particularly in France where the clubs are privately owned, there's a greater disconnect between development of young players and clubs putting teams on the field. In many ways they don't care where the players come from. In Super Rugby we limit the number of overseas players that can be signed to ensure there are spots available for local players.

Australia should always lose players to overseas if we want to be a top rugby nation. We need to be developing far more players than we need in our professional game to ensure we're one of the top 3 nations. The players that miss out on professional contracts here and have to look elsewhere signify what our depth is like. If those players can access professional contracts overseas rather than looking for a job in a different field it is a sign that we are producing good quality players that are better than the options available overseas.

The nature of the professional game is that you only have room for a few development players that aren't ready to play for you now but hopefully will be good enough in the future. Squad sizes are what limits that.

 

[Quick Hands]

If it's not a problem, then there's nothing to be fixed.

 

[Marcelo]

That must only apply to top rugby players and other highly paid individuals cos I can tell you it certainly isn't for most of the population.

Why do you think so many of us are here?!

I'm talking about NZRU's economy and ARU's economy not about the economy of countries. In Australia the AFL and NRL receive ALL the money from TV and big corporations. Even soccer receives more money than the ARU. In NZ all the money is on rugby and what is left is distributed in other sports

 

[Bullrush]

I'm talking about NZRU's economy and ARU's economy not about the economy of countries. In Australia the AFL and NRL receive ALL the money from TV and big corporations. Even soccer receives more money than the ARU. In NZ all the money is on rugby and what is left is distributed in other sports

Without the ABs, the NZRFU would run at a huge loss. I think I read somewhere that the only thing that got them over the line financially last year was the Chicago Test.

ITM Cup runs at a loss I'm pretty sure - dunno about Super Rugby games/season.

Surely though, there is a direct correlation between how well the economy in general is going. People won't/can't pay for sports when they are struggling to pay rent/put food on the table.

 

[Tex]

I'm talking about NZRU's economy and ARU's economy not about the economy of countries. In Australia the AFL and NRL receive ALL the money from TV and big corporations. Even soccer receives more money than the ARU. In NZ all the money is on rugby and what is left is distributed in other sports

Fair enough. But my understanding is that the NZRU and in particular the All Blacks operate on the smell of an oily rage.

While it's harder to pin point, I think the real difference between the two countries is culture. It's been dragged over enough but when playing for the ABs is culturally ingrained as being a peak achievment, you're going to have less issues with retaining talent.

In Australian rugby there's plenty of value placed on the Wallaby jersey, but that recognition and acclaim doesn't carry much weight in the general (non-rugby) community.

 

[Braveheart81]

When a significant portion of the revenue comes from international TV rights, that money goes further in NZ due to the state of the economy.

Cost of living is cheaper in NZ than it is in Australia so salaries can go further. Relatively, professional rugby players in NZ would be higher up the pecking order in terms of average salaries relative to the rest of society than they would be in Australia on the same money.

 

[Quick Hands]

Without the ABs, the NZRFU would run at a huge loss. I think I read somewhere that the only thing that got them over the line financially last year was the Chicago Test.

ITM Cup runs at a loss I'm pretty sure - dunno about Super Rugby games/season.

Surely though, there is a direct correlation between how well the economy in general is going. People won't/can't pay for sports when they are struggling to pay rent/put food on the table.

I think it's both. The economies of the UK and France are much bigger than Australia or NZ. Then in Australia, from the amount of money devoted to sport, rugby is way down the pecking order. Certainly it's on top in NZ, but in global terms the size of the NZ economy is tiny.

 

[Bullrush]

Cost of living is cheaper in NZ than it is in Australia so salaries can go further.

Really depends where you live. Cost of living is cheaper in the more rural areas but if you live in the cities - Auckland in particular - it's the same if not HIGHER.



Sent from my iPhone

 

[Dave Beat]

As things stand, there isn't enough money in rugby in the SANZAR countries for ARU, NZRU and SARU to offer players anything like what they can earn in Europe. So there is nothing that any of those unions can do to reduce the player exodus unless a way is found to bring more money into the game somewhere other than Europe.

Yes understand and agree, the NRL couldnt compete for Burgess either, and the Bunnies pocketed $1m. Maybe Sabaticals have money going back to the ARU - whilst $1m would be nice I don't think it would work. But there are also sorts of variations that may or may not work.

A number of big economies have small to medium rugby involvement and are competitive at tier 2 level. I speak of Japan, Canada and the US. Having those economies part of a larger alliance featuring the SANZAR countries plus Argentina is one way of bringing more money into the game. Lot's of people are very negative about the possibility of this happening, but they are yet to advance any other method of stemming the exodus.

I have always liked the idea of involving Japan, I'd love to see them have a GenBlu type concept in the NRC preparing themselves for the 2019 RWC - and let them buy some ownership into the NRC with their big economy.