Pole: Should there be a level playing field for Australian Super Rugby teams?
- Thread starter jimmydubs
- Start date
- Status
Derpus
George Gregan (70)
People regularly take pay-cuts for greater job security in any profession. But anyway, none of this answers my original question. How does this make the distribution of funds more even for the Super clubs?
True, and I think this is a big part of the significant leverage the players have in our system. I agree the system is not fair. I'd be really interested to know if the players, as a group, like the top-up system as it is, or would prefer increased match payments, as BR posited, which, on the face of things sounds intuitively "fairer" with regards to Wallabies getting paid more.
Our best players take a pay cuts to stay in Aus
It doesn't and I don't believe it ever should, it is a separate payment to be available for the Wobs, they receive essentially a separate wage to play super rugby
FiveStarStu
Bill McLean (32)
There are two options here. One is to simply ditch the top up system and have your Super Rugby wage be for Super Rugby games and your Wallaby wage for Wallabies games. No excuses for not being under the cap. Simple.
Otherwise, ARU should look at the A-League marquee system. Each team has a set number of players they can hire on top-up/non salary cap contracts.
This would mean that the Waratahs, for instance, may still be able to spend more on top-ups than the Rebels, but not on as many players. It would result in a more even spread of nationally contracted players, and if Wallabies don't want to move then they have to go under the cap.
Might mean that fringe Wallabies players have to move around a bit to take advantage of spare marquee places, otherwise I think it'd work a lot better.
Otherwise, ARU should look at the A-League marquee system. Each team has a set number of players they can hire on top-up/non salary cap contracts.
This would mean that the Waratahs, for instance, may still be able to spend more on top-ups than the Rebels, but not on as many players. It would result in a more even spread of nationally contracted players, and if Wallabies don't want to move then they have to go under the cap.
Might mean that fringe Wallabies players have to move around a bit to take advantage of spare marquee places, otherwise I think it'd work a lot better.
jimmydubs
Dave Cowper (27)
What about upping the cap for all teams and make the topups lower, with ARU kicking in 25% or 33%?
Would allow them to still target who they want but should result in a more even distribution of topupees between the franchises.
There'd still be a $ difference between clubs but hopefully not of the same magnitude.
For me that's what's it about not having all the topped up wallabies concentrated at a few clubs. And as others have pointed out stars will move to where the money is available to them (within reason).
If we are serious about growing rugby in Oz going forward and avoiding another contraction then I think having those stars spread around evenly would assist.
Would allow them to still target who they want but should result in a more even distribution of topupees between the franchises.
There'd still be a $ difference between clubs but hopefully not of the same magnitude.
For me that's what's it about not having all the topped up wallabies concentrated at a few clubs. And as others have pointed out stars will move to where the money is available to them (within reason).
If we are serious about growing rugby in Oz going forward and avoiding another contraction then I think having those stars spread around evenly would assist.
It's because the interests of the Super Rugby teams and ARU aren't wholly aligned.
If you put more of the spending power in the hands of the Super Rugby teams it doesn't improve the spread of topped up players, it skews the spending on positions to suit those teams.
The ARU wants to ensure that their key players across all positions are catered for in their contracts. If they cede that buying power to the Super Rugby teams you end up with the money focused on the key positions.
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
I'll vote no, but IMHO the "top ups" are fraught because there is far too much scope for nepotism and rewarding "favourites" instead of actual performance.
I'd much prefer to see an incentive based system rewarded selection in training squad and selection in team. It may also have the added benefit of doing away with Chieka's ridiculous habit of picking a side with one or two to be omitted on game day.
As other people have said it has always irked me greatly that an injured and never fully fit Elsom walked back into the Wallabies, guaranteed the Captainship essentially ostracising a player who I regard as having actually performed better.
I want a job with "top up pay" - paid regardless of performance is what it says to me. Oh wait there are already a couple of those Politicians and Bankers.
I'd much prefer to see an incentive based system rewarded selection in training squad and selection in team. It may also have the added benefit of doing away with Chieka's ridiculous habit of picking a side with one or two to be omitted on game day.
As other people have said it has always irked me greatly that an injured and never fully fit Elsom walked back into the Wallabies, guaranteed the Captainship essentially ostracising a player who I regard as having actually performed better.
I want a job with "top up pay" - paid regardless of performance is what it says to me. Oh wait there are already a couple of those Politicians and Bankers.
An incentive based system doesn't compete with what is on offer elsewhere though.
That is essentially what it comes down to.
Players are fully aware that injuries are a fact of life in rugby and if you've got yourself to the top of the pecking order, a comparison between seeing your earnings plummet if you get injured compared with taking a largely guaranteed contract becomes a serious consideration.
Contracts are a combination of reward for past performance and expectation of future performance.
Heavily incentivising the players based on current performance would ensure that your best players are getting paid the most at the precise time they're your best players and could certainly see relative newcomers earning some of the highest salaries but would it actually encourage anyone to stick around? What would stop that player from thinking that they've just had an awesome season, earned the big bucks but now have access to big guaranteed offers overseas?
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
You would think that contracts are a reward for past performance and expectation of future as you have put it but far to many examples can be given where that is just not the case. As for injuries, take out some insurance like the rest of us. As for incentives to stay and play test rugby, the fact is that few club players can generate the profile from that platform that can achieve from international rugby. So long term their earnings potential can be greatly enhanced by playing some tests and intelligent management. That is quite apart from achieving the pinnacle of the game and the honours of representation.
jimmydubs
Dave Cowper (27)
So 50/50 is the magic split in the infallible topups system and there is no way to or need to improve the current set-up that can see one super teams players salaries 50% higher than another's?
TSR
Mark Ella (57)
I see this a bit as a sign symptom vs cause debate.
If I take League as an example, in broad terms they are not concerned about paying overs to hang onto a player. Because every time a star retires/moves on there are already a couple of others ready to step into the breach. Their development pathways work.
That is a very simplistic explanation of what happens in league, and I'm sure people can shoot holes in my first statement if they want, but I believe the second statement about pathway development is very accurate - Thurston gets injured - Michael Morgan takes over the spot light, Te Marie Martin steps into the vacant role. NZ rugby is very similar.
Here we need to cling to our stars for dear life because there just aren't the players knocking on the door. I really, really hope they can somehow preserve most of the good work the Force have done in their pathways structures.
If I take League as an example, in broad terms they are not concerned about paying overs to hang onto a player. Because every time a star retires/moves on there are already a couple of others ready to step into the breach. Their development pathways work.
That is a very simplistic explanation of what happens in league, and I'm sure people can shoot holes in my first statement if they want, but I believe the second statement about pathway development is very accurate - Thurston gets injured - Michael Morgan takes over the spot light, Te Marie Martin steps into the vacant role. NZ rugby is very similar.
Here we need to cling to our stars for dear life because there just aren't the players knocking on the door. I really, really hope they can somehow preserve most of the good work the Force have done in their pathways structures.
Brumby Runner
David Wilson (68)
Loyalty and wanting to play for the Country are a couple of reasons some, maybe many, would want to stay. Maybe longer domestic contracts, or better options, might help. But in what other field of endeavour do we, as a country, seek to obstruct a participant from seeking better deals overseas? Certainly, not in business or in science. Maybe that's just the way it has to be?
T
TOCC
Guest
You’re mates Bill Pulver and Cameron Clyne are still holding that same discussion..
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
T
TOCC
Guest
Yeah those blokes that you claim can’t do any wrong.. your mates Pulver and Clyne, the pair who have driven Australian rugby Into the ground and taken a handsome pay check for their efforts
dru
Tim Horan (67)
OK, I don’t like your mates and ARU love either. (But that WAS funny.)
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
Whilst pay is a big incentive, being part of a winning culture and true professional development will also be having a big influence on players wanting to stick around. The coaching in Australia have been poor for many years from a low level to Wallabies level. Looking at the continuing poor coaching systems in place with head coaches coming and going and the car park searches for replacements etc. coupled with the total failure at all levels of management, including RUPA, would leave those not in the clique of the Wallabies very jaded and not really interested in hanging around.
Aussie D
Dick Tooth (41)
I think the pay structure could be improved and I am against top ups. I would like to see all super rugby players receive the same base salary and match payments. Those then selected for the Wallabies should then receive a training salary for the Wallabies (from the ARU) as well as match payments. Each super club could also be given an additional salaru cap for marquee players (defined as players who have earned a Waklaby cap or played 50 super rugby games). I think this would be a more fairer and transparent system.
- Status