1. Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

ARU Player Contracts shift - Thoughts?

Discussion in 'Rugby Discussion' started by Karl, Apr 18, 2012.

  1. Karl Bill McLean (32)

    Likes Received:
    354
    http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...layer-deals-20120416-1x3uo.html#ixzz1sM4dNSv4

    What is the view on the impact of this move?


  2. waratahjesus Greg Davis (50)

    Likes Received:
    2,029
    Sounds like work choices.
  3. wamberal Simon Poidevin (60)

    Likes Received:
    4,046
    It's a bit of a risk, but probably an unavoidable one. No doubt some players will be lost for bigger money overseas, but just as hopefully the ones we want to retain for the Wobblies will be recognised and will stay here. It will probably result in a younger, less experienced, but hungrier cohort, and I think that is probably a good thing (and it will obviously be cheaper to maintain them).
  4. Braveheart81 Rocky Elsom (76)

    Likes Received:
    23,225
    The part where players have to sign up with a super rugby team before the ARU will negotiate with them is interesting.

    It makes it a very tough choice to people who would otherwise only in Australia if they are contracted with the Wallabies.

    I'd guess that in reality players will be given some sort of indication in advance as to whether there is likely to be a Wallaby contract on offer.
  5. Karl Bill McLean (32)

    Likes Received:
    354
    Three Years doesn't seem a long contract unless the player is literally at the end of their career. I would have thought getting the "at their peak" and "young guns" players onto 3 year contracts was desirable. Have the older guys or the "we don't know about you yet but you look good so far" ones on short contracts.

    What about the number, is 32 enough? There is usually a what, 26 man squad for a tour? So with only 32 on contract there is only a 6 player buffer where in the past they were obviously contracting for double the amount of a Test/International squad. 54 might be too many, particularly if there are long term contracts for twilight players eating up the cash, but is 32 enough, particularly 32 less attractive contracts?

    The other things they need to consider are player retention and adequate redundance. 32 seems a little skinny.

Share This Page