ARU players pool

[RugbyReg]

I gather that's your dream Reds team for 2010, Noddy. Are Weeks and Daley up to starting matches? What about Holmes? Isn't Humphreys ready for the retirement paddock?

Nah, my reality team (except for hooker, oh and 13). Anyway, Van is still contracted and looks a better option than Byrnes and Simmons at this stage I think.

 

[Biffo]

Let's be honest. This thread is about how the rest of us should help Queensland out of its predicament - in the bottom 3 in the last 6 S12/14s?

May I suggest that Queensland get the ball rolling by doing something to help itself?

Rigorous analysis discards most of the reasons offered for Queensland's fall, especially those of the poaching and "destroyed by the Force".

Can we have some serious proposals on what Queensland should do to improve its rugby strength, using its own resources and not simply asking for the playing field to be reduced to its level?

 

[Ash]

Let's be honest. This thread is about how the rest of us should help Queensland out of its predicament - in the bottom 3 in the last 6 S12/14s?

May I suggest that Queensland get the ball rolling by doing something to help itself?

Rigorous analysis discards most of the reasons offered for Queensland's fall, especially those of the poaching and "destroyed by the Force".

Can we have some serious proposals on what Queensland should do to improve its rugby strength, using its own resources and not simply asking for the playing field to be reduced to its level?

Ignoring Biffo's stupid attempt at trolling, Noddy has already covered the rot that seems to exist in the board room.

I am another supporter who heartily hopes that both the NSWRU and QRU spin off the Tahs and Reds to a corporate entity. Both seem to be to be a shambles. Just right now, it's reversed from the position 10 years ago where the NSWRU was a disaster area and the QRU barely hanging in there, to now the QRU being a disaster area and the NSWRU hanging in there. And who can forget what happened when the ARU gave the NSWRU back? The first things those ungrateful blazers did is get the ARU members off "their" board.

So the Reds need to start at the top and work their way down, rather than hoping on-field success will materialise and magically fix their problems. Just looking at the first team the Reds fielded this year and it's clear it underperformed, despite their huge player loss to the Force, overseas and elsewhere.

But this year it's clear nothing has changed. Promising talk at the start of the season. One or two positive (or lucky) games. Then a sad capitulation and yet another year with the loss of key players that they needed to retain. Just to rub salt into the wound, plenty of the key players have been young, and Wallabies - Moore, 3M, Ioane.

Who'd want to be a Reds supporter?

PS As far as I am aware, Barnes still has not put pen to paper. If the Force were smart...

 

[Biffo]

Let's be honest. This thread is about how the rest of us should help Queensland out of its predicament - in the bottom 3 in the last 6 S12/14s?

May I suggest that Queensland get the ball rolling by doing something to help itself?

Rigorous analysis discards most of the reasons offered for Queensland's fall, especially those of the poaching and "destroyed by the Force".

Can we have some serious proposals on what Queensland should do to improve its rugby strength, using its own resources and not simply asking for the playing field to be reduced to its level?

Ignoring Biffo's stupid attempt at trolling, Noddy has already covered the rot that seems to exist in the board room.
I am another supporter who heartily hopes that both the NSWRU and QRU spin off the Tahs and Reds to a corporate entity. Both seem to be to be a shambles. Just right now, it's reversed from the position 10 years ago where the NSWRU was a disaster area and the QRU barely hanging in there, to now the QRU being a disaster area and the NSWRU hanging in there. And who can forget what happened when the ARU gave the NSWRU back? The first things those ungrateful blazers did is get the ARU members off "their" board.

So the Reds need to start at the top and work their way down, rather than hoping on-field success will materialise and magically fix their problems. Just looking at the first team the Reds fielded this year and it's clear it underperformed, despite their huge player loss to the Force, overseas and elsewhere.

But this year it's clear nothing has changed. Promising talk at the start of the season. One or two positive (or lucky) games. Then a sad capitulation and yet another year with the loss of key players that they needed to retain. Just to rub salt into the wound, plenty of the key players have been young, and Wallabies - Moore, 3M, Ioane.

Who'd want to be a Reds supporter?

PS As far as I am aware, Barnes still has not put pen to paper. If the Force were smart...

Not a troll at all, an attempt to bring focus to the specifics of the problem.

I have already agreed with Noddy re the need for ARU to take over the QRU for a while - get rid of some toxic assets, eh? - and restore it to health. I agree with you the necessity to prevent what happened in NSW after the ARU administration finished. I was an early advocate of dividing management of the fully professional and other elements of rugby.

After you initial outburst, you go right on to make one of the analytical errors that mar serious debate on the subject - you claim yet again that Queensland's poor performance this year was due to losses of players to the Force, overseas and elsewhere (btw, where is "elsewhere"?). Just which players who would be in its starting 22 has Queensland lost overseas in the last three years? For that matter, to the Force or elsewhere?

Queensland had a very strong squad this year - far stronger than last year - but set as its seasonal goal 18 points on the S14 log, i.e. the same as last year. Mate, acquit the Force - I'd even be happy if any other scapegoat were found.

Queensland in general seems able to manage professional sports and teams quite well - look at league, cricket and others. What makes the QRU different from the managements of other sports?

 

[formeropenside]

Van is probably looking down the barrel at retirement, yes, based on the last half of the 2009 season. Could still be useful as a skills (lineout) coach for the Reds next year, and might get a contract to just be a dirty dirty and add knowledge to the team.

Thats the problem with getting older - form slumps tend to become more and more permanent.

We don't know how wounded he was, he looked pretty battered at times.

Thats the other problem with getting older, injuries take longer to heal and sometimes never come back quite as good as before.

 

[RugbyReg]

Australian Super rugby franchises on the horizon with advent of Super 15

By Brett Harris
May 27, 2009

The Super 15 expansion team is set to become the first Australian rugby franchise to be run along the same lines as McDonald's or Starbucks.

ARU chief executive John O'Neill has already flagged that Australia's fifth Super rugby team will be operated under a different ownership model to the existing sides - the Brumbies, Western Force, Queensland Reds and New South Wales Waratahs, which are run by the traditional owners, the state and territory unions.

The expansion team is likely to be the first Australian Super rugby franchise in the true sense of the word, operated by private enterprise in the same way that a small businessman runs a Bakers Delight outlet.

If it is successful, it has the potential to change completely the Australian Super rugby landscape.

Franchising is one of the only ways to access investment capital without giving up control of the business.

The ARU will demand a multi-million-dollar licence fee and also receive royalty payments from the private owners who will run the team.

In this way the ARU will be able to control the expansion team's business practices and philosophy and profit from its success.

For a former banker such as O'Neill, this is indeed rugby heaven. It is pretty much the same model O'Neill and his lieutenant Matt Carroll used when they set up the A-League for Football Federation Australia, but it is a revolutionary concept for rugby union.

There is a significant difference between the franchising idea and the decision a year ago to open the Super rugby teams to private investment.

Under plans unveiled by O'Neill in April last year, the Super rugby teams could receive an injection of capital from the private sector under tightly controlled conditions. This was interpreted at the time to mean the states and territory would remain the majority stakeholders in the teams.

The ARU was meant to produce a prospectus on private equity by last September, but it never materialised.

When no private investors showed any real interest in the idea it was put on the backburner.

The feeling in the business community was that private equity in a Super rugby team under this arrangement would be akin to benevolence.

If the expansion franchise is successful financially, it will place pressure on the other four Australian Super rugby organisations to follow suit, a possibility which surely has not escaped the attention of the traditional owners.

How a Super rugby franchise would co-exist with the traditional ownership model of the other four teams is not entirely clear.

It would certainly create an anomaly in the system and place the ARU in an interesting position to say the least.

The ARU would be the franchisor of one team and the parent body of the other four.

The existing four Super teams would be determined to ensure there was no potential for conflict of interest, as would the ARU itself.

Obviously, the franchise model cannot work without significant private capital. Where is the money going to come from, particularly in the current economic climate?

There are three main contenders for the fifth Australian licence - the Gold Coast, Melbourne and western Sydney.

A consortium of businessmen, including former ARU director Terry Jackman, has already been formed on the Gold Coast to bid for the licence.

There is speculation that the Gold Coast consortium is being supported by Japanese money.

Another group of businessmen is behind the western Sydney bid, while the Victorian Rugby Union is bidding on behalf of Melbourne, although a separate company would be formed to run the team.

Businesses for which franchising works best have a good track record of profitability.

Whether Australia's Super 14 teams fall into this category is debatable as they all seem to experience fluctuating fortunes.

But the history of private ownership in Australian sport is a sobering thought for prospective Super rugby franchisees.

At present, the potential bidders and existing teams seem to be in the dark about the details of the new ownership structure.

Perhaps, this is because SANZAR has not officially made a decision on whether the expansion team will be located in Australia or South Africa.

But the ARU needs to produce a prospectus on private equity sooner rather than later.

O'Neill has stated that he expects a decision to be made on the location of the new team by Christmas.

If the franchise concept is accepted, it will be affect Australia rugby forever.

 

[formeropenside]

After you initial outburst, you go right on to make one of the analytical errors that mar serious debate on the subject - you claim yet again that Queensland's poor performance this year was due to losses of players to the Force, overseas and elsewhere (btw, where is "elsewhere"?). Just which players who would be in its starting 22 has Queensland lost overseas in the last three years? For that matter, to the Force or elsewhere?

For instance:


15 Latham
14 Hynes
13 Ioane
12 James O'COnnor
11 Cummins
10 Barnes
9 Genia
8 Richard Brown
7 David Pocock
6 MMM
5 Horwill
4 Sharpe
3 Blake
2 Moore
1 Holmes

16 Hardman
17 Weeks
18 Chapman
19 Ben Mowen
20 Ben Lucas
21 Quade Cooper
22 Julian Huxley

 

[RugbyReg]

Just which players who would be in its starting 22 has Queensland lost overseas in the last three years? For that matter, to the Force or elsewhere?

Andrew Brown
Ben Coutts
Caleb Brown
Chris Latham
Chris Siale
Clinton Shifcofske
Ed O'Donaghue
Hugh McMeniman
Lloyd Johansson
Mitchell Chapman
Nic Berry
Rodney Blake
Sam Cordingly
Stephen Moore
Tom McVerry

 

[Biffo]

Just which players who would be in its starting 22 has Queensland lost overseas in the last three years? For that matter, to the Force or elsewhere?

Andrew Brown
Ben Coutts
Caleb Brown
Chris Latham
Chris Siale
Clinton Shifcofske
Ed O'Donaghue
Hugh McMeniman
Lloyd Johansson
Mitchell Chapman
Nic Berry
Rodney Blake
Sam Cordingly
Stephen Moore
Tom McVerry

So who would be the 7 on the bench?

 

[Biffo]

Here are some "lost" from NSW in the last three years, from a quick memory scan. There is little doubt that I would find many more on the Reds', Brumbies' and Force's websites.

Vickerman
Elsom
Lyons
Whitaker
Blake (please delete him from "Queensland" lists)
Alexander
Hand
Ma'afu
Cowan
Cross

The point is that NSW, in absolute, "loses" far more players to other states than do Queensland, WA or ACT. Proportionately, the worst sufferer is Victoria.

 

[fatprop]

After you initial outburst, you go right on to make one of the analytical errors that mar serious debate on the subject - you claim yet again that Queensland's poor performance this year was due to losses of players to the Force, overseas and elsewhere (btw, where is "elsewhere"?). Just which players who would be in its starting 22 has Queensland lost overseas in the last three years? For that matter, to the Force or elsewhere?

For instance:


15 Latham
14 Hynes
13 Ioane
12 James O'COnnor
11 Cummins
10 Barnes
9 Genia
8 Richard Brown
7 David Pocock
6 MMM
5 Horwill
4 Sharpe
3 Blake
2 Moore
1 Holmes

16 Hardman
17 Weeks
18 Chapman
19 Ben Mowen
20 Ben Lucas
21 Quade Cooper
22 Julian Huxley

A bit of a stretch with some of those, as some were near unwanted or never played

 

[RugbyReg]

Here are some "lost" from NSW in the last three years, from a quick memory scan. There is little doubt that I would find many more on the Reds', Brumbies' and Force's websites.

Vickerman
Elsom
Lyons
Whitaker
Blake (please delete him from "Queensland" lists)
Alexander
Hand
Ma'afu
Cowan
Cross

The point is that NSW, in absolute, "loses" far more players to other states than do Queensland, WA or ACT. Proportionately, the worst sufferer is Victoria.

the players in the list I provided are players who have played for the Reds in the last 3 years. Contracted players.

Please provide an updated list for NSW. Thanks.

 

[Biffo]

Here are some "lost" from NSW in the last three years, from a quick memory scan. There is little doubt that I would find many more on the Reds', Brumbies' and Force's websites.

Vickerman
Elsom
Lyons
Whitaker
Blake (please delete him from "Queensland" lists)
Alexander
Hand
Ma'afu
Cowan
Cross

The point is that NSW, in absolute, "loses" far more players to other states than do Queensland, WA or ACT. Proportionately, the worst sufferer is Victoria.

the players in the list I provided are players who have played for the Reds in the last 3 years. Contracted players.

Please provide an updated list for NSW. Thanks.

Thanks for clarifying - helps us get to the real point, as my first post tried to do.

Played for Tahs in the last three years and gone? I'll quote four:

Vickerman
Elsom
Lyons
Whitaker

Again, that's just from memory. I'd have to check carefully to be conclusive.

The impacts of losing those four have been immense.

From your list, which I found very interesting, I'd say only Moore's going had a really significant impact. I'm not yet saying McMinimum has gone and he wasn't lost for the 2009 S14.

 

[farva]

What about an AFL style system.

All academies are run by the ARU. The lowest finishing Aus team has the best draft picks up to the best performing one with the worst. Then allow them to pick what players they want based on those draft picks. After that the players can move where they want to.

The other thing that people are not thinking about is that the teams could guarentee a bit more stability is that the 4 provinces could offer longer contracts. Right now players get 1 to 2 year contracts generally, with maybe the very best getting 3 year deals. If the average player got 3 years, and some got longer, there would be less moving around.

Finally, how is it that the Brumbies can afford such a big player group there? It is mostly down to the ARU payments of course. And since the ARU is paying, they should dictate to some extent where players go. I guess the best way they can do that is to give higher payments if they go to provinces with weaker playing groups.

 

[RugbyReg]

What about an AFL style system.

All academies are run by the ARU. The lowest finishing Aus team has the best draft picks up to the best performing one with the worst. Then allow them to pick what players they want based on those draft picks. After that the players can move where they want to.

The other thing that people are not thinking about is that the teams could guarentee a bit more stability is that the 4 provinces could offer longer contracts. Right now players get 1 to 2 year contracts generally, with maybe the very best getting 3 year deals. If the average player got 3 years, and some got longer, there would be less moving around.

Finally, how is it that the Brumbies can afford such a big player group there? It is mostly down to the ARU payments of course. And since the ARU is paying, they should dictate to some extent where players go. I guess the best way they can do that is to give higher payments if they go to provinces with weaker playing groups.

some bloody interesting points there Farva. Worth some though, re the academy.

I totally agree with your last point. it would be interesting to see what players do receive an ARU top up. I mean if the Brumbies have 12 players receiving top ups, and the Force and Reds have half a dozen, then that's a fair bit of a subsidy the ARU are giving the Brums over the other two. So perhaps the ARU should be saying, ok Rock. We'll give you $450,000 to go to the Reds but only $400,000 or $350,000 to go to the Brums??

 

[formeropenside]

After you initial outburst, you go right on to make one of the analytical errors that mar serious debate on the subject - you claim yet again that Queensland's poor performance this year was due to losses of players to the Force, overseas and elsewhere (btw, where is "elsewhere"?). Just which players who would be in its starting 22 has Queensland lost overseas in the last three years? For that matter, to the Force or elsewhere?

For instance:


15 Latham
14 Hynes
13 Ioane
12 James O'COnnor
11 Cummins
10 Barnes
9 Genia
8 Richard Brown
7 David Pocock
6 MMM
5 Horwill
4 Sharpe
3 Blake
2 Moore
1 Holmes

16 Hardman
17 Weeks
18 Chapman
19 Ben Mowen
20 Ben Lucas
21 Quade Cooper
22 Julian Huxley

A bit of a stretch with some of those, as some were near unwanted or never played

I'll give you Huxley being unwanted (that was crazy Eddie) - and Mowen too, perhaps - but the point of the ones never played cements the point I am making. Qld lost some frontline players in 2005, but it was the Academy hit that was cruel. The thinning of depth creates a problem now when Croft retires and Pocock is in the West, and similarly with James O'Connor.

As to Blake (and since then Weeks) how many years did NSW have to pick them and did not? Thats fair enough, take an established club player who can't get a run at his real home. Its not like Blake was getting love from NSW and we stole him from under your nose before you had a chance to contract him.

 

[Biffo]

Qld lost some frontline players in 2005, but it was the Academy hit that was cruel. The thinning of depth creates a problem now when Croft retires and Pocock is in the West, and similarly with James O'Connor.

You make a good point about academy players. Let's take the last four years (so that the Force recruiting is fully included) and ask two questions:

(1) how many Queensland academy players of those four years who are now genuine S14 players with other teams?
(2) how many Queensland academy players of those four years who are now genuine S14 players with the Reds?

 

[Lindommer]

Ignoring Biffo's stupid attempt at trolling...

Ash, I think you misjudge Biffo's motives, together with his sentiments about Australian rugby. They're not too different from yours and mine (other than your overly sanguine support of all things Queensland).

 

[Scotty]

I totally agree with your last point. it would be interesting to see what players do receive an ARU top up. I mean if the Brumbies have 12 players receiving top ups, and the Force and Reds have half a dozen, then that's a fair bit of a subsidy the ARU are giving the Brums over the other two. So perhaps the ARU should be saying, ok Rock. We'll give you $450,000 to go to the Reds but only $400,000 or $350,000 to go to the Brums??

I thought I read somewhere on here that he was being offered extra by the ARU to go to the Reds?

I don't think the whole franchise concept will work when each team is so reliant on the ARU for top-ups, not to mention players being centrally contracted. Surely if you were the owner of the new franchise, you would demand an equal amount of money from the ARU as each other province in the form of player top-ups. I'm sure there would be a good basis for a legal challenge if you didn't get it.

The ARU must provide equal money to each of the provinces, no matter who owns them. This in effect will act as a type of salary cap, and will naturally help to distribute players more evenly throughout the teams. I don't think we can get into looking at individual players all the time to see if they aren't playing enough minutes at one team, and might be better going to another - that would create about 3 fulltime jobs, and that is 300k pa the ARU can't afford.

I don't mind the idea about a draft system, this will especially help out the teams outside of NSW and Qld. I especially back the idea of each team being run separately to the state unions.

 

[fatprop]

I agree it thins depth, but guys move for opportunities.

For the Tahs both Gerrard and Shepherd moved to start, a reason I totally agree with.

Pocock went where he had a good chance of playing earlier, as did Richard Brown (did he ever play a game for the Reds?)

The ones I would be dirty about are the Moores, Sharpes, MMM & Chapmans. 1st 15 players who left in their prime.

Latham got the same type of treatment Bourke got.

Blake was rubbish