Pole: Should there be a level playing field for Australian Super Rugby teams?

[jimmydubs]

Due my inability to string together enough coherent thoughts to win a debate on the ARU thread (also partly due to impressive diversionary tactics) I thought a pole was a better way with a (hopefully) simple question.

Example of the reason for the pole to be polled (thanks to georgina robinson via KIAP). 2016 numbers of ARU topsups to each club, in excess of the amount they can spend under the salary cap (currently $5 million per team).

Tahs: $2.60 m
Brum: $1.30 m
Reds: $1.05 m
Force $270 k
Rebs: $120 k
-------------
TOTAL $5.34 m

 

[Slim 293]

I don't think you understand the top up process.........

They're not going to the clubs to dish out - they're going direct to the Wallaby players.

And as mentioned elsewhere - those numbers are a year old and does not represent the boost in top ups to those bottom 3 teams this year, especially the Reds.

 

[BLR]

I don't think you understand the top up process...

They're not going to the clubs to dish out - they're going direct to the Wallaby players.

It has the same final result.

It is like Pulver calling the money going to the Rebels as 'incremental funding' not a bail out. The money is still going into the pocket with the same result.

 

[wamberal]

Oh, a POLL.

 

[Slim 293]

It has the same final result.

It is like Pulver calling the money going to the Rebels as 'incremental funding' not a bail out. The money is still going into the pocket with the same result.

I think this is a process that is flawed and should be discussed.........

But let's cut out the bullshit.

 

[jimmydubs]

Oh, a POLL.

Just following on from Dismals pole action

 

[jimmydubs]

I don't think you understand the top up process...

They're not going to the clubs to dish out - they're going direct to the Wallaby players.

And as mentioned elsewhere - those numbers are a year old and does not represent the boost in top ups to those bottom 3 teams this year, especially the Reds.

I understand the process.
It's a yes/no if you think the current system is fair that's fine.

 

[Dismal Pillock]

Disappointed in this Pole. Had high hopes when I saw the word "Pole" but from there, frankly, it all went downhill. Only 2 options? What happened to the old classic of "All of the Above" for Option A? Or the unimpeachable "Prefer Not To Say"?

Plus only 7 votes cast in 2 days? I had better turnouts at my "Best Pole To Kill Byron Kelleher With" pole

 

[cyclopath]

Oh, a POLL.

Under the Pitcairn Convention of 2015 we call them Poles.

 

[fatprop]

No such thing as a level playing field in the real world.

 

[jimmydubs]

No such thing as a level playing field in the real world.

Does that mean there shouldn't be attempts made at one?
Most sports at least pretend to try.

 

[fatprop]

Does that mean there shouldn't be attempts made at one?
Most sports at least pretend to try.

ARU tops is a bad measure in Aus rugby of Super Rugby "fairness", we already have a salary cap, tops ups reward past performance, always have a lag built into them and the player signs that with the ARU, it is separate from the Super Rugby deal.

It is essentially a well paid second job

 

[Derpus]

There just wouldn't be enough player freedom in a system where top-ups have to be equally distributed between teams.

It would always end up that a team would have to cut a great player, who may not want to relocate to Canberra or wherever there is space.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I think we all know that there can't be absolute fairness in the distribution of top up money. So let's just put that hurdle behind us and take the view that the question is about having a more fair and equal system than the existing one. In that sense, I've voted yes.

The answer might be to get rid of the top ups altogether and just have the ARU pay larger match payments for those selected to play for the Wallabies, with a bonus system for multiple Wallabies' appearances in the one year. There must be better ways to handle remuneration to the top echelon players than the existing system that often sees players get their multi $ooos even when they're injured or out of form and sit on the sidelines for the best part of the international season.

 

[Derpus]

I think we all know that there can't be absolute fairness in the distribution of top up money. So let's just put that hurdle behind us and take the view that the question is about having a more fair and equal system than the existing one. In that sense, I've voted yes.

The answer might be to get rid of the top ups altogether and just have the ARU pay larger match payments for those selected to play for the Wallabies, with a bonus system for multiple Wallabies' appearances in the one year. There must be better ways to handle remuneration to the top echelon players than the existing system that often sees players get their multi $ooos even when they're injured or out of form and sit on the sidelines for the best part of the international season.

Would there be any effective difference between Top ups and match fees earnt? At the end of the day, one way or another, the ARU will have payed more to players from one club than another.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Derpus, I see some immediate benefits. An injured or out of form player will not get the top up when he is not playing, while others who are not now getting a top up under the present system will get additional payments for their appearances. The prime example of how the present system is broken was the failure of the ARU to offer a top up to Ben Mowen so he left to go to Europe when he was the outstanding Wallaby Captain candidate.

Match payments will reward all players who get selected for the Wallabies and hopefully will give some fringe Wallabies an incentive to move to another franchise where they might enhance their prospects of gaining national selection.

 

[Braveheart81]

The issue around contracting is financial certainty. The top ups exist because players want financial security and some certainty about their earnings. The higher players are up the pecking order the better their bargaining power.

In many ways the top ups are an equal reflection of reward for past performance and importance going forward.

 

[Braveheart81]

Derpus, I see some immediate benefits. An injured or out of form player will not get the top up when he is not playing, while others who are not now getting a top up under the present system will get additional payments for their appearances. The prime example of how the present system is broken was the failure of the ARU to offer a top up to Ben Mowen so he left to go to Europe when he was the outstanding Wallaby Captain candidate.

Match payments will reward all players who get selected for the Wallabies and hopefully will give some fringe Wallabies an incentive to move to another franchise where they might enhance their prospects of gaining national selection.

McKenzie didn't want to offer Mowen a top up contract. If he had been highly desirable for McKenzie going forward they would have contracted him.

The match payments are generous. Clearly they would be higher if they did away with top up contracts. How does that work for keeping players in the country though?

From your own post you said Mowen left because he wasn't offered guaranteed money for the next season.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I'm sure Mowen's situation would have been different had he been paid a higher match payment for the tests he had played and had known that he was due to be paid for any extras he would play in the future. Especially if it was a level playing field for all Wallabies'players.

There does come a point though that if a player values his alternative contract over the honour of playing for his country, then let him go.

 

[Braveheart81]

Especially if it was a level playing field for all Wallabies'players.

It's never a level playing field in sport though. The best players are offered substantially higher contracts than others because there is greater demand for them overseas as well as other things such as marketing ability from their profile.

The challenge is hanging onto players for the next season. Top up contracts help you do that. I don't know that getting rid of top up contracts and offering bigger match payments would result in more players staying and/or a better mix of players staying.

There would just be more players weighing up between a large guaranteed contract overseas compared with a substantial amount of their earnings not being guaranteed if they remain in Australia.