Aussie Player Exodus

[Inside Shoulder]

in 2012 Hooper started against Scotland, and was then: bench for Wales first 2 and did not get on for 3rd test, or first test v NZ, then started 2nd game v NZ and was a fixture from then on.
So he had about 1.5 seasons under his belt when he was given a top up - we think.
My point: the "rules" can be bent if the powers that be so desire - all of the league big name signings prove that, as does Hooper. And probably Beale and Palu too.
In Mowen's case those powers did not so desire. I think he was treated poorly, but thats not the point.

 

[Sword of Justice]

in 2012 Hooper started against Scotland, and was then: bench for Wales first 2 and did not get on for 3rd test, or first test v NZ, then started 2nd game v NZ and was a fixture from then on.
So he had about 1.5 seasons under his belt when he was given a top up - we think.
My point: the "rules" can be bent if the powers that be so desire - all of the league big name signings prove that, as does Hooper. And probably Beale and Palu too.
In Mowen's case those powers did not so desire. I think he was treated poorly, but thats not the point.

I absolutely agree with you. My frustration is channelled towards the ARU in that case rather than any of the coaches who probably didn't clammer towards signing Hunt and Folau on mega top ups without playing a game.

 

[Slim 293]

To be fair Mowen was in his debut year, but who knows what role he would've continued to play under Link, particularly as they were starting to form a successful leadership team on the EOYT.............

I'm not sure if he would've been given a top up even if he was going to be guaranteed captain.............

At the least, if he had stayed in Australia, he would've played plenty of test rugby this year as we ran out of backrowers, our lineout regressed, and the team lacked proper leadership.

The rules only get bent on very special cases............ and Mowen was never an NRL target.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I'm not sure if he would've been given a top up even if he was going to be guaranteed captain.....

true.
doesn't read well though, does it?
something about disordered priorities

 

[Strewthcobber]

Hooper, Higgenbotham, McCalman and Palu all resigned in 2013. You'd imagine they'd get top ups of varying degrees. Dennis and Gill did as well with no top up.

There's only 25 contracts, or around 12/13 a year.

Can't give everyone big $$$. And if you're not first choice with everyone fit then you probably don't deserve one

 

[Marcelo]

Hooper, Higgenbotham, McCalman and Palu all resigned in 2013. You'd imagine they'd get top ups of varying degrees. Dennis and Gill did as well with no top up.

There's only 25 contracts, or around 12/13 a year.

Can't give everyone big $$$. And if you're not first choice with everyone fit then you probably don't deserve one

Are Higginbotham, McCalman and Palu on a top up? Higginbotham and Palu should have a contract by game played. Especially Palu who has more injuries than hairs on the head.

For me it's ok if Hooper has a good contract. Something for him is that he never gets injured, is a player who assures more than 10 games per year, that's very valuable in modern rugby. I know some are angry with him for his role as team captain in the last spring tour because their performance wasn't the best but he's a very valuable player.

We can't rely on Pocock for his injuries, another knee injury and his career ends like Pat McCabe. Hodgson is too old (33), McMahon started well against BaaBaas and then his performance declined.

So today Hooper is important for the team, I don't want him as captain (I prefer Moore) but he's a starting player right now. He has achieved a lot for such a young player, I like him.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Are Higginbotham, McCalman and Palu on a top up???

If those guys and their ilk aren't, then we're going to run out of players that would be....

(Maybe not McCalman?)

 

[Brumby Runner]

The rules only get bent on very special cases.... and Mowen was never an NRL target.

Nor a potential defection to League who had to be enticed to stay.

 

[Marcelo]

If those guys and their ilk aren't, then we're going to run out of players that would be..

(Maybe not McCalman?)

Scott and Wycliff have too many injuries per year. They should have a contract by game played IMO

 

[Strewthcobber]

Scott and Wycliff have too many injuries per year. They should have a contract by game played IMO

They do. As do all wallabies. $10k per match

 

[Marcelo]

They do. As do all wallabies. $10k per match

I know but in addition they have an annual salary, right?

 

[USARugger]

Any top-up policy based around injury would set a horrendously bad precedent and would only push players overseas by the boatload. These guys aren't getting hurt by dancing too hard in the club - it's almost always while playing for club or country.

You don't take away a guy's guaranteed money because he got hurt playing or training for you. You take away the playing-based incentives in their contract when they can't play, it's how just about every major sporting organization I can think of structures their contracts.

Here's some fun questions for the lawyers here to chew on under the hypothesis of an injury-based top-up package:

1. What defines "injury prone"?
2. When does a player reach the threshold where they are considered an injury liability?
3. When does a player become available for a top-up again, if ever? How long does it take to become classified again as worthy of a top-up?
4. What kind of jackass agent would ever let their player sign a contract in which there is no guaranteed money should the player become injured playing for their employer?

 

[Marcelo]

What kind of jackass agent would ever let their player sign a contract in which there is no guaranteed money should the player become injured playing for their employer?

The incentive payment per game played is a reality, then what are u talking about?

 

[USARugger]

You can't strip players who have qualified for top-up status of their top-ups based on injury - this is exactly what you promoted in your other post.

Read my whole post next time?

You don't take away a guy's guaranteed money because he got hurt playing or training for you. You take away the playing-based incentives in their contract when they can't play, it's how just about every major sporting organization I can think of structures their contracts.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I think USARugger has identified the driver: its the guaranteed amount that matters.
Even so, Palu has never played a full season, has he? I mean, its not like he plays 7 S15 games, misses couple and then comes back. Every injury he has seems to be season ending.
Unfortunately this is a fact that should have been faced many coaches ago: put him on $15k per test or something.
This is yet another example of the ARU not having the correct priorities: you don't save money by giving out 25 contracts to blokes a 1/4 of whom have long term injury issues.
I would question the idea that every major sport functions in this way: we keep topping blokes up when we know they are injury prone. In most sports that would lead to a heavily incentivised contract rather than a large guaranteed lump sum.

 

[USARugger]

I would question the idea that every major sport functions in this way: we keep topping blokes up when we know they are injury prone. In most sports that would lead to a heavily incentivised contract rather than a large guaranteed lump sum.

Large guaranteed lump sums are fairly rare in general, but guaranteed money is not. Purely match-based payments is generally the stuff of semi-pro and amateur sports leagues for a reason.

Players won't play for an organization if they feel the financial security provided to them isn't commensurate to their ability to play. Injuries can happen at any time, to any player. Defining "injury prone" would also be a clusterfuck even if you quantified it by availability v. tests played.


You can't strip players of their current agreements without setting a very dangerous precedent that could easily go as far as impacting on-field play (why do something risky and get hurt if it's going to cost you $XX,XXX+ because you're now "injury prone"? Ie: CFS having 2 years of hamstring issues, coming back healthy and playing fairly well, then falling to a bit of a freak shoulder injury. Isn't Palu's most recent "injury" related to concussion issues anyway? That's also out of the bounds of his history of injury.) and would absolutely push players towards Europe.

The only way to approach this would be the restructure the top-up system in general, which probably needs to be done anyway. It's seemingly a system that has no hard or fast rules and is largely subjectively based - this is not playing out well on an economic level.

I'm not entirely sure how the top-up system works internally (is anyone?) but are the renewals automatic or performance-based? Who decides - the ARU or the Coach, both perhaps?

 

[Strewthcobber]

This is yet another example of the ARU not having the correct priorities: you don't save money by giving out 25 contracts to blokes a 1/4 of whom have long term injury issues.

Gee you will be limiting your playing pool if you use this as a criteria. Plenty of European clubs willing to offer guaranteed money for world class players.

Which of our experienced forwards don't have long term injuries?

Off the top of my head Moore, TPN, horwill, palu, higgers, pocock, Robinson, mccalman have all missed plenty of games in the last few years. That's the price for playing at the top level as you get older.

 

[TOCC]

Yep, agree with USARugger, a contract where the players entire salary is tied into match fees is a recipe for disaster.. Guaranteed wages are a better enticement for a player to remain. People have loans, bills etc, people need to know how much they will be earning.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Im not talking about abandoning the top up.
I'm talking about the way it is handled.
Palu is the clearest case: how would the course of Australian rugby have been different if he had not been given a top up? Dave Dennis probably played more tests than him in 2012 and 13.
As for the idea that you're limiting the pool the fact is that the guys aren't playing so the pool is limited and the cash is spent.
Central contracting is part of the answer but we're moving further away from that.

 

[wamberal]

Im not talking about abandoning the top up.
I'm talking about the way it is handled.
Palu is the clearest case: how would the course of Australian rugby have been different if he had not been given a top up? Dave Dennis probably played more tests than him in 2012 and 13.

Better judges than me (or, dare I say it, you) made the call based upon the belief that Palu was worth it.

You are just another one in a long line of experts who could do a better job, although to be fair, you are relying on the benefit of hindsight.