Discussion in 'Shute Shield' started by the coach, Jul 16, 2013.
Wockka has space for them at Balmain Footy club.
Having re-read this it seems as though the ARU is only planning to ratify the right of the S15 teams to stop players returning to their clubs. This is only going to piss off the clubs, the players and the fans as there won't be any consistency. All or nothing IMO. Once their S15 commitments are over all the players should be allowed to play for their club side or none at all.
My reading of it is they are formalising that the Rebels, Brumbies and Force can refuse to let their players return to clubs in Sydney and Brisbane - which you assume as their employer they can probably do anyway.
Whilst growing the game in non-traditional areas is a worthwhile goal I can't see that it is optimal for fringe Wallaby squad members to be having easy jogs against amateur opposition in Melbourne/Perth/Canberra (no disrespect to the club players there intended) rather than facing a near SR strength Sydney Uni in the SS particularly if you have to call them up to face the All Blacks or Boks the next week because of injury
Most ,if not all first grade players in the Shute Shield have a contractual agreement with their club.This would supersede subsequent agreements with a S15 franchise.I would imagine
this would be an important consideration for players & Super15 clubs when considering a contract between the two.
For a contract to be legally binding between two parties there must some consideration (ie payment) in return for services or product provided. If players are not being paid directly by their clubs then there is no legal contract.
My understanding is that in the vast majority of cases the S15 contracts are the only legal contracts with the exception of those that also have a top up contract with the ARU. The agreement players have with their clubs is only a technicality if they are not being paid. Although the clubs have to provide a release if the player wants to go elsewhere, this is generally just an acknowledgement that the club is not paying the player or, if they are, the contract has expired.
Exceptions occur with players like David Harvey who "signed" with Eastwood a few years ago only for Gordon to point out he had an existing contract with them ie they were paying him and would not release him.
In my ,("significant"),experience in the Shute Shield,the majority of first grade & fringe players are paid by their club.Hence my comment above.I understand that Randwick club
has said that they are not paying their players.There may be other exceptions & denials.And of course "payments" can take a number of forms .Not surprisingly clubs
subsequently seek to protect their position by means of a contract agreed to by the player.This arrangement also serves to protect the interest of the player.This all might sound obvious,however your post above suggests that you may not be aware of how commonly this practice occurs.
Sorry, I was mainly talking about the S15 contracted players where the clubs certainly don't appear to have any legal hold over them or, if they have done in the past, it sounds as though the ARU is about to attempt to override it.
How long is the average club player's contract in your experience?
Is it ever longer than 1 year?
What can't be overlooked is all players, from Ben Mowen to little Johnny in the U9's are registered by the ARU, this supercedes everything in a playing sense. Throw in player agents, the bizarre arrangements between franchises and the ARU, overseas playing rules and the Players Union and I doubt you can get any consistency or even enforcability in contract. I believe all are acting with the best intentions, just no coordination.
The game might allow for payments but it's a long way from "professional". Either the ARU takes full control or fully leaves it to the franchises. Sorry to say, the Club's just don't have the financial clout to follow through on anything.
Until this situation is sorted, guessing who's going to play where is window dressing that conceals the inability to provide a quality competition below S15 or a credible pathway for players.
Point regarding this thread - the format is redundent until everyone decides to work together.
I wonder if there are some clubs/players who are now a little nervous of an ATO audit following the ARU CEO highlighting in the national press that payments are happening which may or may not have been correctly accounted for by those concerned (PAYG/Super etc)?
Would be highly amusing if an unintended consequence of his stupid comments resulted in an FBT liability (which is payable by the employer) to the ARU for benefits provided to ARU contracted players by clubs (associated parties by virtue of being ARU members)!!
At the risk of being pedantic, consideration can be supplied in forms other than money - a job or even an introduction to a job may be consideration and support a contract.
In days of yore the release was a means of making sure that the player had cleared any obligations (subs, for instance) he had with the club before being permitted to play for another club.
[USER=6788]Rugby Central[/USER] I would disagree if you intend to suggest that Shute Shield is not a quality comp: when you consider all the distractions and impediments it is a pretty bloody good comp.
Is $10k to a player in the Tahs 2nds really going to make the difference? Unless he's still living at home that would barely pay the rent so he is going to have some other income - therefore there is likely to be tension if not outright conflict between that job and footy...hmmm starts to sound a lot like the current situation with just with the clubs suffering by being pushed down heirarchy.
And where do the players come from for the Tahs 2's? Clubland? What were they doing for cash until picked up by the Tahs 2's?
I love the idea of a 2nd string comp between the provinces for all sorts of reasons but i dont think the problem can or should be attacked by jumping it at club level and issuing orders - we need a holistic ground up plan - U6's to Golden Oldies.
Yes ,many players are contracted for more than one year.This is influenced by what the club thinks is a reasonable reward for what the
club is giving or doing for the player.Of course there are many instances when a club does not attempt to enforce an agreement ,e.g. when
a player receives a better opportunity to play overseas,or switch to League.It can also be an expensive exercise for a club if they wish to test a contract at law.
Legal opinion which I have seen however ,is that in general terms ,contracts between a club & player are potentially enforceable , irrespective of the position
of the ARU.I am interested in hearing the opinion of others on this site with more legal expertise than I.
It should not be ignored that a lot a players have agents who are part of the negotiations ,including in some instances,with colts players.Also some agreements are negotiated
& signed off by parents on behalf of their underage son,a factor which can also complicate the picture.
I believe that some consideration should be given to clubs who suddenly have a player whisked away never to be seen again in effect ,after considerable investment by them in the player.This may be the case with an ever increasing number of players following the recent announcement by the ARU mentioned above.
The introduction of another competition eg.a second tier super 15, played during the Shute Shield season,with permanent loss of even more players than currently is the case,
clearly pushes the latter another step down the hierarchical ladder & superimposes on the existing dwindling level of interest which we currently observe.
I can't say I've heard of many instances (except Dave Harvey at Gordon) where a club has succeeded in preventing a player leaving whether to go to another club, S15 in another state or overseas, but that may as you suggest be because the club doesn't want to stand in the way or is not willing to try to enforce the contract. In league of course there was the classic case of SBW who just walked out of a legally binding contract and although his club eventually received some financial compensation the whole episode brought the player contract situation into question.
Bill Pulver will be doing his best to kill the Shute shield & Australia's biggest rugby nursery as he can. All he wants is bigger super rugby squads (up to 40 players & some fringies), stamp out academies to "save money" play a Mickey Mouse super B comp & try flog it to pay tv & run some incarnation of the ARC in skeleton form from July through till Oct/Nov.
Here's an idea. Put all the players back into Sydney & Qld Premier comps (if the players wish) if they don't - let them play locally. And give the club players the best test of rugby skill they can get by playing against Super 15 contracted players as much as possible. How hard is it!
It's not the whole answer, howya, but it addresses the real need for our professional players to be continually
exposed to high level competition and for club players to have the same sort of experience. Why is common sense such a rare commodity?
Maybe because common sense isn't that common.
For example, the discounted on-line tickets to tomorrow's GF which are actually more expensive than paying at the gate!
Quite the contrary IS. I think the Club is where it should be controlled from. Both SS and Brisbane Premier comps are brilliant. Especially given what they have to work against in S15 and the ARU.
My point was the Clubs don't have and will never have (at least the way things are currently run) the finances to match the kind of opportunites offered by the franchises or the ARU. So if you're going to clean up the contractual mess that currently exists, then it will have to, unfortunately, come from that level.
I believe it should be driven from Club level and playing a S15 and international level is a privilige. Compensated fairly, but a privilige nonetheless. Sadly as with most things, with the money comes the power.
Those unpaid interns have a lot to answer for.
It's simple. If you aren't in the match day 23 for that week you go back to club land somewhere (preferably Sydney & Brisbane) and you play with that club for the entire season. None of this bullshit playing for a Melbourne club for 3 games then heading to Sydney to play for another club. Sort it out Pulver you Muppet!
Ah ha I have it - a break away comp called Green and Gold Rugby.
Think Tank here and no doubt some sound ideas, structures, and sponsors could be established.
Separate names with a comma.