ARU players pool

[formeropenside]

Ash - I'm not seeing the problem here. With 4 Wallaby props at the Tahs, one or more will choose to move elsewhere for a starting spot, and pretty soon I imagine. Actually, the problem for the Tahs could be that 2 go - say Robinson and Kepu (although thats unlikely) and the Tahs are stuck with an aging Baxter and Dunning, one of whom gets injured...

The market will sort it out fast enough. And a team should not be punished for successful development (although Kepu was a poach from NZ, as was Dayna Edwards - to an extent - before he moved to Qld)

 

[the gambler]

The more I read of this topic the more I think we need to go to an Open Market Economy. Process of natural selection and all that.

If a player wants to be 4th or 5th string because he thinks he will improve more there, or wants to stay in his home state then let him.

If a state has the ability to sign 4 Wallaby hookers then let them.

We can see what happens when boards and committes get involved in rugby issues.

 

[cyclopath]

The nub of the problem remains funding. In principle I agree with sharing the "talent" more equally (some of the talent is more talented than some other!) amongst the Unions. I think, like others have said, that a roughly equal share of ARU top-up money be distributed to each, starting from a point so that new signings have to be taken into allowance within that amount. Doesn't penalise those Unions that already have a disproportionate share in an area (too hard to apply retrospectively), but hopefully stops further inequalities emerging.
Of course the real funding issue is that players with a sense of entitlement will be offered more money to do fuck all in Japan or somesuch and will be hard to retain, but without the Unions being profitable entities that can stand alone, I see no answer to that. Some we can afford to say "Sayonara" to (MMM) but others like Digby are problematic. Ultimately they must decide what is of more value down the track - a cupboard full of Wallaby jerseys, or a suitcase full of yen to tell the grand-kids about!

 

[Biffo]

The more I read of this topic the more I think we need to go to an Open Market Economy. Process of natural selection and all that.

If a player wants to be 4th or 5th string because he thinks he will improve more there, or wants to stay in his home state then let him.

If a state has the ability to sign 4 Wallaby hookers then let them.

We can see what happens when boards and committes get involved in rugby issues.

Absolutely. Who are we, or the ARU, or the QRU, or the NSWRU or the WARU or the ACTRU to dictate to a player where his own best interests lie?

It is no coincidence that the two Australian S14 teams which seem best at recruiting and retaining players have their management split from the administrators.

The Australian system is not broken. Let the maket and fair competition prevail.

 

[Lee Grant]

Never underestimate the power of the invisible hand of the marketplace.

Adam Smith said, famously: Every individual...generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.

Thus a player making decisions in his own interests may promote Oz rugby in ways he never, and certainly, we never, thought of - so long as he stays in Australia, that is.

 

[rugbywhisperer]

I have no idea how to even start to comment on that Lee - geez - this is a rugby forum - thats the type of stuff I get at uni

 

[Biffo]

LG once again right on target.

I totally oppose any change to the current system of ARU "tops-up".

The top-up was never, is not now and must never be, intended to equalize the four provinces, in any shape of form. The top-up is an ARU payment to ensure Wallaby-standard players receive payment which is commensurate with their skills, risk and endeavour in consideration of the overall market for athletes within Australia and the specific international rugby market.

The four province teams compete for players on the basis of (1) the salary they can pay, which has a ceiling (2) "third party" payments (3) the potential for greater reward and (4) the working conditions in their shops. The top-up is irrelevant to competition among the four teams for players.

Something has been made of the Brumbies, for example, getting a larger share of the tops-up than do the Reds. I have news for you. All four S14 teams receive precisely the same from the ARU in the form of top-up: AUD 00.00. It is a payment to the player, not the S14 team.

 

[Langthorne]

Never underestimate the power of the invisible hand of the marketplace.

Which only works efficiently when UNHINDERED

What proportion of player salaries does the top-up represent?
The bigger the percentage, the more it distorts how the four provinces can compete for players.

These players remain in Australia (in part) due to the top-ups from the ARU. If the Super team for which they play does not have to be concerned about how they can afford the TRUE VALUE of each player, then the top-ups ARE relevant to competition between teams for players.

 

[Cutter]

Yes, the market is wonderful and will fix everything.

The problem with the market is that emotion plays a large part in it. For example, players clearly fear transferring to QLD and disappearing from national consideration. Players probably fear going to the Force because Mitchell has a reputation.

The Force needed a good front row this year. The market didnt fix that. It might fix it for next year but who can tell. The market is not the perfect distributor of wealth.

I'm not necessarily suggesting that we do need to interfere but blind faith in the market is blind faith.

 

[Biffo]

The problem with the market is that emotion plays a large part in it. For example, players clearly fear transferring to QLD and disappearing from national consideration. Players probably fear going to the Force because Mitchell has a reputation.

The solutions to those two problems are (1) for Queensland to manage its affairs so that players do not fear going there (2) the Force to fix the Mitchell reputation problem.

Why should the Tahs and the Brumbies be penalized because the reds and Force can't fix their internal problems?

 

[Lee Grant]

I checked for my comment that the market would fix everything and I failed. Sorry. All I saw was a comment that the power of the marketplace should not be under-estimated.

There has been a comment that emotion plays a large part in it. Tough - emotion is the essence of the marketplace as any married man would know.

Biffo is right: if there are firewalls that stop a player going elsewhere, it is the firewall that has to be dismantled, not the decision of the player.

Players will not want to go to play in places that will diminish their satisfactions. Thus backs may not want to play for the Tahs, winners may not want to play for the Reds, wusses may not want to play under Mitchell, and guys who like a warm climate may not want to play for the Brumbies. Their satisfaction index may be raised by more money being available in this location or that, including offshore, but that is the tyranny of the marketplace.

Long may it prevail.

 

[Langthorne]

Yes, the market is wonderful and will fix everything.

The market is not the perfect distributor of wealth.

I'm not necessarily suggesting that we do need to interfere but blind faith in the market is blind faith.

Can I safely assume the first statement was sarcasm?

The market, even if it was not an unbalanced one (ie ARU funding), may very well not be perfect - but I think it could work better than the other options. (We would still be talking about a somewhat regulated market where the norms of law still apply).

Non financial considerations are an absolutely valid reason for choosing one team over another - they are part of the market question. ie what is one thing worth to a player as opposed to another

My point is that a large aspect of the market has been skewed by the ARU payments.

The result is that the best spread of players, and the benefits that would bring, is hindered (well, that is the opinion of many people, though not all - some would be happy to have all the best players concentrated into one team in the mistaken belief that it will lead to World Cup success).

 

[Lindommer]

Let the market and fair competition prevail.

And look where that got the western world the last few years. Untrammelled lending to the great unwashed in the USA with LOTS of competition and little regard to sensible lending practice caused the biggest blowout of bad debts in history. Australia wasn't too far behind.

The ARU's money is someone else's money, mostly ours, ie, the state unions, the clubs and the Australian rugby community in general. Whenever other people's money is dished out it must be done with the highest principles and an expectation it will either be repaid or put to very good use. I fail to see how the ARU paying 20 Wallabies at the Brumbies and two at the Reds improves the standards of Australian rugby (a bit of ranter's licence here to make my point). The ARU should channel payments to the four (and five) Super sides through contracted Wallabies in equal amounts. It should make it a condition for NSW and Queensland their unions must spin off the professional teams to a separate board, as the Brumbies and Force have done. As the playing numbers around Australia aren't equal (and won't be in our lifetimes) the ARU should assist the Force, and the Melbourne Mudlarks, with some moving and living expenses for those players who wish to up roots to play for them. The QRU should be put on notice to come up with a comprehensive plan to get itself out of the shit or be sacked. Finally, the Australian rugby community should ask the Federal Government why it's prepared to put some $40m into preparing a bid for the soccer World Cup in 15 years' time, which we won't win and will yield us nothing, and won't give rugby $20m to build a fantastic sporting facility at Ballymore.

End of rant.

 

[Cutter]

Lindommer you have hit the nail on the head there.

Of course we could have one very strong super team and 3/4 weak ones. But that wouldnt help the young players at the other provinces who would benefit from the guidance of an experienced Wallaby. Similarly, young players at the strong province will be blocked by the strength of, for example, the front row (waratahs) or back row (brumbies).

We cant expect all our teams to be strong, but its not too much to ask to spread the talent around so that we have 2-3 strongish sides (much as we did this year) and 1-2 weaker sides. Clearly the Reds cant get things right. The invisible hand of the market will, if left to act on its own, guide young Queenslanders to AFL, soccer, league or computer games if the Reds continue to flounder. I'm not sure which system I favour, but market intervention (or more accurately, further market intervention) is the best way to ensure the Wallabies are strong.

 

[Langthorne]

Lindommer, as far as ARU money is concerned, I think we are in agreement, in principle.

Given the salaries involved, I don't know that relocation cash is really necessary (though there is nothing to stop the teams themselves from offering it as an incentive, and 3 year contracts etc).

I agree that a certain amount of uniformity (in terms of structure), plus accountability and responsibility, should be required of all Super teams/franchises.

I knew somebody would come out with the "look where the market got us" line at some stage...first point - a relatively free market economy, security of property, the availability of capital generally, the rule of law etc have been an immense and unprecedented success in terms of wealth, life expectancy, quality of life etc.
As far as I can tell, the recent problems relating to banking and lending in the western world have to do with that sector alone. I suspect that the fact that banks are afforded rights that other entities do not have (such as lending multiple times more money than they have on deposit) coupled with a free market mentality, plus no management accountability, plus incompetence, plus malpractice, caused the the problems.
The other problem (here, and at other times) is that governments aren't prepared to let bad businesses fail, even banks.

 

[Biffo]

Please refer to my post number 66 on this thread.

I repeat: All four Australian provinces receive exactly the same amount in top-ups from the ARU and it is precisely zero. The top-up is a payment to a player of Wallaby standard to remunerate him aptly and to provide an incentive to stay within Australia. The top-up is not part of revenue for any province. There is not, never has been and must never be, any tying of the top-up to the province which a player selects.

The top-up has very small relevance to a rational player's decision on province. First, a recipient of a top-up may be reluctant to move to a province where, in his perception, his chances of keeping Wallaby status would be reduced. Second, a player without a top-up might see the advantage of moving to a province where his prospects of becoming a Wallaby were enhanced. For example, I wonder if Cowan and Hodgson thought that the greater opportunities at the Force might lead to their becoming Wallabies and getting top-ups when they decided to move, or did they just want to play S14, which would have been a long way off for both in NSW? I suspect the latter.

The top-up scheme has been very effective, has no faults and should not be tampered with. If you want to discuss some form of province-equalization - through a draft, ARU administration of failed provinces, contracting out management of province unions or cash payments to the less equal - then that is an entirely different matter to assessing top-ups.

 

[Biffo]

rant.

I am complying with Scarfie's edict on quoting

You missed a startling fact in your discussion of the finance sector collapses in one para and of the collapse of the QRU in the next para. There is a common factor at work here: Jon O'Neill was a banker and is CEO of the ARU!!! How about we pin the global finace sector collapse and the demise of the Reds on him?

O'Neill is pilloried throughout Yurope for the ELVs, even though he was not at the ARU while the ELV "project" was conceived, tested, approved by the IRB and implemented. He was not at the ARU when the S14 was discussed and approved and the extra Australian team adopted, so he must be responsible for the Force being formed. The Force is the sole cause of the fall of the Reds.

I must therefore conclude that Gary Flowers was an O'Neill mole, sent to destroy Queensland rugby.

That conclusion being unchallengeable, who is O'Neill's target for destruction via the S15?

 

[fatprop]

:-\ since when can' t the employer (the ARU) move employees (the players) around to different branches (S14 franchises)

There is nothing to stop the ARU making offers subject to them playing somewhere. (except the RUPA agreement and that can change)

 

[rugbywhisperer]

That would be a collateral third party contract and should the collateral contract lapse/fall whatever the ARU would have a basis for rescinding their contract. I do not think too many managers will be happy having their players on such a fragile agreement with the ARU.

 

[Biffo]

:-\ since when can' t the employer (the ARU) move employees (the players) around to different branches (S14 franchises)

There is nothing to stop the ARU making offers subject to them playing somewhere. (except the RUPA agreement and that can change)

Yeah, right. The ARU says to four Wallaby contract holders who are at the Brumbies "you have to go to Brisbane to boost the poor Reds, or you lose your top-up". Can you think of a better way of assisting the European and Japanese recruitment of top quality players from Australia?