• 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.

Australian Rugby / RA

jimmydubs

jimmydubs

Dave Cowper (27)
Braveheart81 said:
In terms of Genia, the cash was still there from the ARU and he wanted to play at the Reds but they couldn't afford him based on the halfbacks they already had signed.

Likewise for Simmons he had ARU money already but the Reds were committed to other locks so didn't find the dollars to re-sign him.

I don't think the ARU is about to change their policy. Let's say James Slipper's contract ends and the ARU want to re-sign him. I don't think they're ever going to do that only on the proviso that they switch to a team with less contracted Wallabies.

The teams from the traditional rugby states will continue to have an advantage because more of the players are from there originally and that location will be their preferred team.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Simmons and genia both show that players will play in Oz at their second choice state. It's not 'tahs or toulon'. So you even the playing field and some players have to have the huge hardship of moving to another great Oz city.

Maybe I wasnt clear enough or you chose to overlook the main point. TOCC managed to understand. Although I will grant that I could be more coherent.
 
jimmydubs

jimmydubs

Dave Cowper (27)
Slim 293 said:
They all have the same money to spend....
Click to expand...
Does that justify a response?
I mean seriously. Me and my brother both have enough money to buy a car but dad chips in for him and he gets a hsv and I'm stuck with a conformadore. Did we have the same money to spend?
I don't like league but when that happened at the storm they smacked their bums. Here the governing body helps you do it!
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
jimmydubs said:
Simmons and genia both show that players will play in Oz at their second choice state. It's not 'tahs or toulon'. So you even the playing field and some players have to have the huge hardship of moving to another great Oz city.

Maybe I wasnt clear enough or you chose to overlook the main point. TOCC managed to understand. Although I will grant that I could be more coherent.
Click to expand...
I understand your point.

I am saying there is a substantial difference between a player being unable to make a deal with the club of their choice and telling them that the ARU money is only on offer if they move to a different club.

In these instances the ARU top ups didn't make it easier for the Reds to retain those players which is generally the main point made in this debate.

I don't think it is a level playing field but I also don't think we will see a substantial change in policy.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
 
cyclopath

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
jimmydubs said:
Simmons and genia both show that players will play in Oz at their second choice state. It's not 'tahs or toulon'. So you even the playing field and some players have to have the huge hardship of moving to another great Oz city.

Maybe I wasnt clear enough or you chose to overlook the main point. TOCC managed to understand. Although I will grant that I could be more coherent.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, what you are saying is that the ARU should bump some extra to a franchise to entice a player, who already has a top-up, to go to a particular franchise for Super Rugby, because I must admit I was a little confused by your posts too? Have I got it right? If so, the theory sounds OK, but I can see issues with how they implement such a process in reality. It sounds to me a bit like a genie they might struggle to get back in the bottle, if you play it out a little way!
 
jimmydubs

jimmydubs

Dave Cowper (27)
Braveheart81 said:
I understand your point.

I am saying there is a substantial difference between a player being unable to make a deal with the club of their choice and telling them that the ARU money is only on offer if they move to a different club.

In these instances the ARU top ups didn't make it easier for the Reds to retain those players which is generally the main point made in this debate.

I don't think it is a level playing field but I also don't think we will see a substantial change in policy.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
The main point in the debate is that we need an even playing field. They were just examples that people move.

The fact (as you very often do) think there won't be a substantial change doesn't mean there shouldn't be.

So your point boils down to "that because people want to play for the Tahs the Tahs should have a larger proportion of total player salaries with the amount over and above other states paid by the governing body"? Yes or no?
 
jimmydubs

jimmydubs

Dave Cowper (27)
cyclopath said:
Just to clarify, what you are saying is that the ARU should bump some extra to a franchise to entice a player, who already has a top-up, to go to a particular franchise for Super Rugby, because I must admit I was a little confused by your posts too? Have I got it right? If so, the theory sounds OK, but I can see issues with how they implement such a process in reality. It sounds to me a bit like a genie they might struggle to get back in the bottle, if you play it out a little way!
Click to expand...

Either cap the topups amount each state can get. Or do away with topups and increase the salary cap accordingly. Or do away with topups and increase player match fees accordingly. Or a combination.

I haven't thought through in detail what would be the best. But we need an even playing field. What is the point of the salary cap in the current arrangement?
 
cyclopath

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
jimmydubs said:
Either cap the topups amount each state can get. Or do away with topups and increase the salary cap accordingly. Or do away with topups and increase player match fees accordingly. Or a combination.

I haven't thought through in detail what would be the best. But we need an even playing field. What is the point of the salary cap in the current arrangement?
Click to expand...
I know what you're saying, but I think any of those paths would open a hornets nest. I agree something needs to change, but I am a bit puzzled as to the best option. I certainly don't think increased salary caps alone would work. But the top ups aren't working appropriately.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Slim 293

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
jimmydubs said:
Does that justify a response?
I mean seriously. Me and my brother both have enough money to buy a car but dad chips in for him and he gets a hsv and I'm stuck with a conformadore. Did we have the same money to spend?
I don't like league but when that happened at the storm they smacked their bums. Here the governing body helps you do it!
Click to expand...

You do realise that analogy doesn't work.........
 
cyclopath

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
BLR said:
Just do whatever NZ it does. It sure isn't the wank served up by how the ARU run things.

Solved it lads.
Click to expand...
The ARU tried for a move to a centralised system. Twice. It was defeated. No prize for guessing why.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Slim 293

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
jimmydubs said:
I haven't thought through in detail what would be the best. But we need an even playing field. What is the point of the salary cap in the current arrangement?
Click to expand...

Theoretically it is an even playing field........ Team A develops Wallabies....... those players get rewarded. Unfortunately there is other criteria that favours the traditional teams.
 
USARugger

USARugger

John Thornett (49)
Sounds like some of ya'll want a draft system. Can't foresee that happening when State bodies are as involved as they are in player development.
 
USARugger

USARugger

John Thornett (49)
Slim 293 said:
It can't work in Australian rugby.... It only works in sports like AFL, NFL, NBA etc. where those competitions are be all and end all.
Click to expand...

A player could just opt out of the draft before it happens if they intend to play overseas.

The broader issue I'd see with a draft in Australian rugby would be the cacophonous roar from QLD/NSW about players they've invested time/$$ in now going to play the majority of their career in a foreign state where they no longer serve the commercial interest of the bodies involved in getting them there.

This already happens in function but a draft system would guarantee it happening, and at the beginning of a player's career where they're at the apex of time/$$ invested v commercial value reaped. Because of this I can't ever see QLD/NSW going for anything resembling a draft system.

The pathway to professional sports in the US is a lot more linear and the organizations involved in player development are largely private institutions who have their commercial interests served by the time the athlete moves on to the next step in their career.
 
B

BLR

Guest
cyclopath said:
The ARU tried for a move to a centralised system. Twice. It was defeated. No prize for guessing why.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Well the Force agreed to sign up to such a step with the 'Alliance Agreement' and when the Reds went to the ARU for a handout in 2016 the ARU could have just told them to do the same or no cash. This would have set the precedent and force franchises to play ball. If the ARU want their way they simple need to make it a stipulation to hand over power for money. But, as they used this to cut the Force I couldn't see the franchises giving the ARU any measure of further power as they have shown they cannot use it in a responsible way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top