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

[jimmydubs]

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.

I suspect that's going a bit too far. On the same line of thought they all live in aru provided one bedroom flats and drive lada zhigulis as well. Perhaps wearing Cameron clyne face badges.

 

[BLR]

I suspect that's going a bit too far. On the same line of thought they all live in aru provided one bedroom flats and drive lada zhigulis as well. Perhaps wearing Cameron clyne face badges.

What is this 1980, drawing links to Communism is old hat.

 

[Pfitzy]

Oh, a POLL.

I was thinking something far more risque...

 

[liquor box]

The issue with a level playing field is that it makes for great rugby for Aussie fans to watch but will not lead to Super Rugby success.

A level playing field will mean all teams win at home and lose away to the other Aussie teams.

My issue with trying to make teams even is that our national coaches tens to have coached a franchise so have some loyalty or ability to promise players that they will get a national selection and top up.

I personally think that some Tahs players are selected based on their history with Chieka but also admit that many non reds fans would have thought the same when Link was coach.

I still think a draft system would be the best way to even out our teams but it also needs a salary cap which I would prefer to be based on skill sets and not dollars.

A rookie might be ranked at 1 point, a regular Super level player 2 points, a wallaby squad member 3 points and a starting wallaby 4 points.

Teams get a set amount of points (with deductions for producing talent that is bought from them) and must stick to this point maximum but can spend what they want. This means well financed teams can buy any talent they choose but not all the talent.

 

[Brumby Runner]

This is a comment fro WOB on another thread.

"Hard to see Waikato getting up over the Bay but what I find interesting is that either way another of the Big 5 will be going down (albeit Wellington will surely be coming up), which suggests to me that the stricter salary cap NZRU brought in a few years back is starting to have the desired effect in terms of spreading the talent more evenly."

If a discerning observer like WOB can see benefits from evening out the competition in the Mitre 10 Premiership and Championship, then it is a compelling argument to do something similar here in Aus imo.

 

[Jagman]

This is a comment fro WOB on another thread.

"Hard to see Waikato getting up over the Bay but what I find interesting is that either way another of the Big 5 will be going down (albeit Wellington will surely be coming up), which suggests to me that the stricter salary cap NZRU brought in a few years back is starting to have the desired effect in terms of spreading the talent more evenly."

If a discerning observer like WOB can see benefits from evening out the competition in the Mitre 10 Premiership and Championship, then it is a compelling argument to do something similar here in Aus imo.

Problem is they encompass the whole competition the aus conference is only a part. Even out our teams and its not likely that any of them will contend for a title against the Super Rugby teams that don't have a cap controlled by the ARU.

Also if say the waratahs develop 2 wallabies, why should they lose one to keep the other (under a stricter cap). And they did whose to say the one they let go is going to be happy to be shipped off to another city in OZ when southern France beckons.

Sent from my FP2 using Tapatalk

 

[Braveheart81]

Problem is they encompass the whole competition the aus conference is only a part. Even out our teams and its not likely that any of them will contend for a title against the Super Rugby teams that don't have a cap controlled by the ARU.

I don't know this is relevant. I think our team wages are higher than NZ or SA.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

This is a comment fro WOB on another thread.

"Hard to see Waikato getting up over the Bay but what I find interesting is that either way another of the Big 5 will be going down (albeit Wellington will surely be coming up), which suggests to me that the stricter salary cap NZRU brought in a few years back is starting to have the desired effect in terms of spreading the talent more evenly."

If a discerning observer like WOB can see benefits from evening out the competition in the Mitre 10 Premiership and Championship, then it is a compelling argument to do something similar here in Aus imo.

Totally different context, though, inasmuch as there's not merely a team salary cap but a maximum (& minimum) salary per player & NZRU can & do put a value on players irrespective of what they're actually being paid: Taranali can pay BBarrett $5K but NZRU will still value him at $85K (or whatever the maximum is these days). That's the big change that's occurred, preventing the warehousing of players as the Big 5 used to do. I don't think any of these are a real factor in the Australian context, mostly because you don't have central contracts.

 

[Jagman]

I don't know this is relevant. I think our team wages are higher than NZ or SA.

I assume all blacks get paid just as much if not more (because they're better they can demand more) and non all Black's get paid well to play in the mitre 10 cup don't they?

Sent from my FP2 using Tapatalk

 

[Brumby Runner]

Totally different context, though, inasmuch as there's not merely a team salary cap but a maximum (& minimum) salary per player & NZRU can & do put a value on players irrespective of what they're actually being paid: Taranali can pay BBarrett $5K but NZRU will still value him at $85K (or whatever the maximum is these days). That's the big change that's occurred, preventing the warehousing of players as the Big 5 used to do. I don't think any of these are a real factor in the Australian context, mostly because you don't have central contracts.

Thanks WOB, but to the point, some of us are saying the present Aus system is broken and are suggesting a system that tends to level the playing field across the franchises is needed. It might not be the NZ design, but the outcome in the Mitre comps is what we want to see over here.

 

[Braveheart81]

I assume all blacks get paid just as much if not more (because they're better they can demand more) and non all Black's get paid well to play in the mitre 10 cup don't they?

Yes, the top All Blacks are paid as much or potentially more than our top players. I think the average Super Rugby salary in Australia is higher than in NZ though.

The point was that the salary cap isn't artificially holding us back relative to the NZ and SA teams because it is creating a cap at a higher level than what their team salary bills are.

 

[Jagman]

Yes, the top All Blacks are paid as much or potentially more than our top players. I think the average Super Rugby salary in Australia is higher than in NZ though.

The point was that the salary cap isn't artificially holding us back relative to the NZ and SA teams because it is creating a cap at a higher level than what their team salary bills are.

OK but our teams are so far behind theirs regardless of pay, there is no way the ARU can make the whole comp even, so forcing players to move cities to make our teams even, (I.e.weaker, non competitive) is not something aus rugby can afford to do.

I assume that NZ super players also get paid well for their fully pro national comp or is it all inclusive in their Super Rugby contracts like ours?

In the NRL, if a Sydney player is forced out due to the cap they can just move to a team a few suburbs away. They don't have to move house, change schools etc. And they're less tempting for European and Japanese clubs because they require time and effort to get used to switching codes. The northern hem clubs don't like investing in players, they want the complete product immediately, take Barba for example.

The current cap/top up system rewards teams for developing Wallabies. The Shute shield teams used to complain about Sydney Uni having an unfair advantage, Sydney Uni's response was, get better and develop Super Rugby players like we do. Teams like norths randwick, warringah etc responded and now the competition has gone up a level.

Its really a moot point now that there is only 4 teams as the brumbies don't have a problem developing Wallabies and the rebels are getting all the wallabies the force have developed. But I don't see it as a good thing for Australian rugby to force players to move from Sydney or Brisbane because they've become Wallabies. If we had our own version of the NRL it would be logical but we don't.

Sent from my FP2 using Tapatalk

 

[fatprop]

I wouldn't be against the Kiwi defence from warehousing, (I think) each team nominates a protected 25, the balance of the squad can be drafted to other franchises for the season for their protected 25

 

[Brumby Runner]

Its really a moot point now that there is only 4 teams as the brumbies don't have a problem developing Wallabies and the rebels are getting all the wallabies the force have developed. But I don't see it as a good thing for Australian rugby to force players to move from Sydney or Brisbane because they've become Wallabies. If we had our own version of the NRL it would be logical but we don't.

Sent from my FP2 using Tapatalk

Nah, the wheels have fallen off the Brumbies' development of Wallabies, big time. Only two starters now in the national team and a lot of talk about Kuridrani making way for Hunt.Two currently on the bench, but Speight is well and truly in the firing line to be replaced in the 23 by Hunt. Something has clearly gone amiss at the Brumbies; must be a sure thing for the wooden spoon next year.

 

[Jagman]

Nah, the wheels have fallen off the Brumbies' development of Wallabies, big time. Only two starters now in the national team and a lot of talk about Kuridrani making way for Hunt.Two currently on the bench, but Speight is well and truly in the firing line to be replaced in the 23 by Hunt. Something has clearly gone amiss at the Brumbies; must be a sure thing for the wooden spoon next year.

On the brumbies, they're a good example of one of the benefits of the system (or you might say a bad example). You could argue that To'omua took an overseas contract because the Brumbies refused to develop him for national purposes i.e. they played him at 10 instead of 12. This fitted the brumbies at the time but do you think an NZ team would get away with that? What the All Blacks want they get. The Brumbies didn't develop their Wallaby, if they had he might have made the position his own and he (and the brumbies) would be enjoying a nice ARU top up. But by the time they switched him to 12 it was too late.

In any case I don't think the Brumbies can complain with Pocock on Sabbatical, the ARU have bent backwards to keep him. I don't know of any Waratahs getting paid to go on Sabbatical.

Sent from my FP2 using Tapatalk

 

[Slim 293]

On the brumbies, they're a good example of one of the benefits of the system (or you might say a bad example). You could argue that To'omua took an overseas contract because the Brumbies refused to develop him for national purposes i.e. they played him at 10 instead of 12. This fitted the brumbies at the time but do you think an NZ team would get away with that? What the All Blacks want they get. The Brumbies didn't develop their Wallaby, if they had he might have made the position his own and he (and the brumbies) would be enjoying a nice ARU top up. But by the time they switched him to 12 it was too late.

That's not true....... the Brumbies did move To'omua to 12. He went overseas because the money was good, and frequent injuries were limiting his Wallaby opportunities, as well as the brief return of Giteau.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I would be sick of the treatment I got from the Wallabies coaches too if I was Matt To'omua. Thrown in the deep end against the ABs for two tests and then discarded. More lately it was injury that saw him sit out much of the 2016 Super Rugby season.

In any case, that is just one example. Just what is happening to Arnold, Ala'alatoa, Powell and Speight now? And I seem to recall there was a bearded character playing on the side of the scrum who also got a rotten deal at Wallaby level.

And I'll say it once more for those who are so thick that it doesn't seem to get through, Pocock was not paid to go on Sabbatical.

 

[Braveheart81]

Are you serious?

To'omua played almost every test he was healthy for since he debuted. After starting his first two tests he played the next four tests on the bench then the four after that starting.

Ala'alatoa has played all 9 tests this season and 18 of the 21 tests that we've played since he debuted.

 

[Jagman]

That's not true... the Brumbies did move To'omua to 12. He went overseas because the money was good, and frequent injuries were limiting his Wallaby opportunities, as well as the brief return of Giteau.

From my memory To'omua was moved to twelve in 2016. https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...st-wellington-hurricanes-20160221-gmzii6.html

In any case the point is the top up system encourages teams to do the best for their players to earn national selection... And keep it.

Sent from my FP2 using Tapatalk

 

[Kenny Powers]

Posted this link in the ARU thread but deserves a post here it was a submission by Rugby WA / Force to the ARU about leveling the playing field. Clearly was ignored by the ARU or vetoed by the powers to be in NSW & Qld.

Also shows how much it costs to run a Super Rugby team

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentar...fairs/Futureofrugbyunion/Additional_Documents

Open #1 Answers to Questions taken on Notice during 20 September public hearing, received from Rugby WA, 29 September 2017

Contrast it to the NSW Rugby submission to the Senate Enquiry

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentar...munity_Affairs/Futureofrugbyunion/Submissions