Aussie Player Exodus

[Scrubber2050]

Where exactly do the ARU get the money to start contracting a large number of school leavers who wouldn't currently get a contract?

What would that contract look like in terms of demands and remuneration? Are they full time professionals?

How long does that contract last for? When that contract expires, the bad players won't be re-signed and the good players will be in a position to demand more money and better conditions.

When there are other options available to players, I don't see how the practice of trying to sign players up to bad contracts with onerous demands on players is every going to be successful.

BH - its not compulsory - they could go to France (or Romania) as an 17 or 18 year old.
Kids don't need a lot of money - the expectation is that when they become a part of a Franchise they are remunerated accordingly. Whats wrong with $25,000 to $30,000 first up.
BDA is correct in respect of Contract Law.

 

[Braveheart81]

99% of those 17 and 18 year olds aren't currently getting paid anything.

What do you gain by contracting those players for a couple of years? How many years do you foresee these contracts lasting?

If then the truly talented 18 year old comes along and you're saying you're only going to pay them 30k a year, what happens when another franchise decides they're willing to pay more for that player because that's what they think they're worth?

It seems that you're arguing that the ARU could stop players going overseas and save money all by locking in young players on contracts. I just don't see how that works in reality.

 

[Scrubber2050]

99% of those 17 and 18 year olds aren't currently getting paid anything.

What do you gain by contracting those players for a couple of years? How many years do you foresee these contracts lasting?

If then the truly talented 18 year old comes along and you're saying you're only going to pay them 30k a year, what happens when another franchise decides they're willing to pay more for that player because that's what they think they're worth?

It seems that you're arguing that the ARU could stop players going overseas and save money all by locking in young players on contracts. I just don't see how that works in reality.

Most players are "valuable" or not by their early 20's

Contract them for a five (5) year period as I have suggested earlier. A 2 year contract is worth shit because the potential of most has not been achieved.

If they are good enough they get moved into the senior squad. Current franchise has first option but then the player can move to another squad if the player is moved up to the senior squad.

By locking in young players we lock them in for the future of our locan Australian Conference. By allowing other existing Suoper 15 or Wallaby players to go overseas then a substantial portion of the value of the players contract (not from the players pocket) needs to be paid by the overseas club as a transfer fee. This would ultimately mean that foreign clubs would pay the player somewhat less dollars (and therefore the overseas option may not be quite as attractive, as it originally did.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Do we really have a problem with young guys going overseas? Isn't the problem the guys in their mid-twenties at the peak of their careers going for big $$.

So your contracts would have to be ~10 years long and you'd have to sign people up in bulk before you knew who was good.

 

[Braveheart81]

Let's say that you're looking at signing 75 17 year olds to one of these five year contracts. If we went with the $25k per year figure that's $9.375m over the five years just in the player payments. That's a lot of money for the ARU. You can guarantee that at least 50 of them will never play Super Rugby. That's several years you're paying someone to be an amateur. How much training is required in one of these contracts? Clearly it can't be full time because these people will need to have another job if they are expected to look after themselves.

What happens when the best few 17 year olds get some advice and say fuck that, I'm not going to sign a ridiculous low ball contract that runs for five years because I'm backing myself to do better than that? No team or the ARU is going to cut off their nose to spite their face and miss out on the best few players because they won't agree to the ridiculous terms presented.

I just don't see how you think that a new contracting mechanism that grossly underpays the best players and signs them for very long periods of time will work in reality.

It just seems like a method that will end up paying money to a whole lot of players who will never become professional rugby players.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Do we really have a problem with young guys going overseas? Isn't the problem the guys in their mid-twenties at the peak of their careers going for big $$.

So your contracts would have to be ~10 years long and you'd have to sign people up in bulk before you knew who was good.

No I don't think so, re the young guys. I believe they deserve some remuneration for training etc.

Initial contract for 5 years. The players potential will be reached or we would have a much better idea on how he is progressing. a good old "get out clause" for the Franchise for "non-performance " blah blah... The players real value to overseas
At any time during that initial contract he can be moved up onto a senior squad contract and a further contract after playing for the Wallabies(which includes a release transfer fee during that term. If they go off contract, sign a foreign contract (by going around the back door) they should be marked as never playing for the Wallabies again Harsh but fair

 

[Scrubber2050]

Let's say that you're looking at signing 75 17 year olds to one of these five year contracts. If we went with the $25k per year figure that's $9.375m over the five years just in the player payments. That's a lot of money for the ARU. You can guarantee that at least 50 of them will never play Super Rugby. That's several years you're paying someone to be an amateur. How much training is required in one of these contracts? Clearly it can't be full time because these people will need to have another job if they are expected to look after themselves.

What happens when the best few 17 year olds get some advice and say fuck that, I'm not going to sign a ridiculous low ball contract that runs for five years because I'm backing myself to do better than that? No team or the ARU is going to cut off their nose to spite their face and miss out on the best few players because they won't agree to the ridiculous terms presented.

I just don't see how you think that a new contracting mechanism that grossly underpays the best players and signs them for very long periods of time will work in reality.

It just seems like a method that will end up paying money to a whole lot of players who will never become professional rugby players.

WTF - 7517 kids - why

 

[Quick Hands]

Courts in this country have decided you cannot impose a transfer fee on athletes out of contract so any proposal has to take that into account.

Its very hard for me to see how any increase in transfer fees fron contracts which would have to include every promising young player in the country for a substantial length of time would outweigh the cost of all of those long, all encompassing contracts

A transfer system could only work if implemented by World Rugby. I'm not saying it's even possible in that circumstance, but it probably would be. There's no way any country or even a group of countries could go it alone.

 

[Quick Hands]

Do we really have a problem with young guys going overseas? Isn't the problem the guys in their mid-twenties at the peak of their careers going for big $$.

So your contracts would have to be ~10 years long and you'd have to sign people up in bulk before you knew who was good.

I don't have a problem with anyone going overseas; we're a professional sport in a global market.

There's no way the ARU can stop players going - firstly there simply isn't the money in the game in Australia to do so and secondly the opportunities to play your chosen sport in different countries is a plus for rugby, not a minus.

The global movement of players is going to increase, not decrease over time. This reality needs to be accepted and managed by the ARU so that if is a positive for rugby in Australia, not a negative.

 

[the plastic paddy]

The other aspect that I think needs to be considered is what is happening (or seems to be) in the current French setup. As more and more foreigners (NH and SH) fill the club scene, the weaker the national team seems to become. Maybe the French clubs don't mind that but I think as it gets worse at the national level, as it's bound to, then it won't be surprising if at some future time a cap is put on the number of foreign players in each club squad. Same could happen conceivably in other countries where the mighty $ is king in constructing squads atm. There might be a feedback mechanism about to kick in.

Unfortunately there is little the French or English Unions can now do about that because they have abdicated control of the club game in both countries, and now the whole of Europe, to the clubs. Many of us fought a hard and bitter campaign to keep the Unions in charge of the European game, and keep a bit of leverage back, but the Scots stabbed everyone in the back at the 11th hour. The FFR and RFU are not going to be your saviours in this, they have completely shat the bed.

 

[the plastic paddy]

A transfer system could only work if implemented by World Rugby. I'm not saying it's even possible in that circumstance, but it probably would be. There's no way any country or even a group of countries could go it alone.

World rugby can't enforce anything on European club rugby. They are now in control of the game because most of the French clubs are richer than most of the unions. Any attempt to control their activities will end up in court. International rugby is on the slippery slope to oblivion.

 

[BDA]

whilst unlikely, i dont think you could rule out that the IRB will implement a formal transfer market at some stage in the future for top flight provincial rugby. I'd certainly like to see them turn their mind to one eventually.The game is gradually becoming more global. Thee IRB may eventually have to implement measures to combat the growing economic disparity between the top tier countries and the rest of the world. I'd argue those safe guards are more important to the development of rugby than they are in soccer, which is a genuinely global sport. Even in 2015, the idea that the money in French rugby could over time cause fan numbers in a country like Australia to be adversely effected surely has to raise alarm bell.

The European Transfer setup in soccer works well in that it rewards a club for developing a player which turn out to be a star. If there was a transfer system adopted by the top tier (and even 2nd tier nations) it would see a better distribution of talent and would financially benefit a country like Australia, that produces a lot of great talent. In theory a club like the tahs would become substantially more wealthy in 2016 following the departure of various older big name players to Europe/Asia.

I wouldn't be surprised if even some people in France would welcome the idea, given that some might argue the current system is hurting their domestic depth.

 

[Quick Hands]

World rugby can't enforce anything on European club rugby. They are now in control of the game because most of the French clubs are richer than most of the unions. Any attempt to control their activities will end up in court. International rugby is on the slippery slope to oblivion.

I certainly won't be holding my breath for World Rugby to do anything. It's a sad state of affairs that national unions can't or won't control their own clubs.

 

[Scrubber2050]

My original comment re transfers was really only about "protecting" Austranian rugby a bit more than it is - about making it a little less attractive (and more expensive for foreign clubs) to sign our test players and some younger blokes.

 

[Quick Hands]

My original comment re transfers was really only about "protecting" Austranian rugby a bit more than it is - about making it a little less attractive (and more expensive for foreign clubs) to sign our test players and some younger blokes.

I agree with your ideal, it's just that the European clubs have few if any restrictions on what they can do. Plastic Paddy's couple of posts give a bit of an indication of the state of rugby in NH where the clubs seem to have played the national unions off a break and are now almost a law unto themselves.

I honestly don't know what the answer is, just that the people running the game need to be adapting to the changing circumstances for the betterment of the game.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Yeah I think any kind of international move is virtually impossible.

We can only attempt to control our own backyard for OUR benefit

 

[Quick Hands]

Yeah I think any kind of international move is virtually impossible.

We can only attempt to control our own backyard for OUR benefit

I think that's right, but I'm not sure how much control we actually have.

The ARU can control who gets an ARU contract and who is picked for the Wallabies. They have limited control over who plays super rugby, although I reckon if anyone challenged the rule prohibiting foreign players from being contracted to super franchises, it would be struck out as being an unreasonable restraint of trade. The ARU would then have to show why it it reasonable to have that rule and with the amount of foreign players in professional soccer, union and league competitions around the world, they'd be hard pressed to do so.

 

[the plastic paddy]

I am not sure what the answer is for Aus, but I think you want to be very wary of picking lads who play outside Aus. If all the unions hold hard then the international game will retain a bit of leverage. The Welsh bringing in central contracts combined with Gatland's determination to favour Welsh based lads wherever possible is bearing dividends already, Ireland will not be selecting anyone from outside the Island once Sexton heads home.

 

[Quick Hands]

I am not sure what the answer is for Aus, but I think you want to be very wary of picking lads who play outside Aus. If all the unions hold hard then the international game will retain a bit of leverage. The Welsh bringing in central contracts combined with Gatland's determination to favour Welsh based lads wherever possible is bearing dividends already, Ireland will not be selecting anyone from outside the Island once Sexton heads home.

There is hope that the international game can survive. RWC is a big money spinner for WR (World Rugby), maybe that is some extra leverage to use in the future. i.e. no RWC hosting for England or France unless club competitions are kept in line. That just leaves the Scots

 

[Brumby Jack]

Will Genia confirmed to Stade Francais for 3 years