"Transparency" at the ARU

[ACT Crusader]

I agree with this totally, it's about how big a slice of the pie he is getting.
IF the total wages bill is say $28M, and IF he is effectively getting $1.4M, then they are making a rod for their own back.

How much of the pie he gets is more an affordability issue rather than what he's worth.

Agree with BH, that the offers from overseas clubs were probably substantial given his profile, ability and leadership experience. So the ARU management made a call on the structure of a contract that had incentives for both sides.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

You can argue the price is too much and it may be (but we don't know what the offers Pocock received internationally were).

The year off in between was all agreed as part of the deal. I really don't see how it is any different if they were paying him the same amount of money but only making payments in 2016 and 2018.




Isn't it just a reaction to the market that the top handful of stars are offered dramatically bigger contracts than the players slightly below that who might be really good test players but aren't seen as being amongst the top echelon of players?

Its a dud deal how ever you slice it but we evidently disagree on that fundamental premise.
Do they argue about payment levels in NZ?

 

[Braveheart81]

Its a dud deal how ever you slice it but we evidently disagree on that fundamental premise.
Do they argue about payment levels in NZ?

I don't think they argue to the same extent, but there are reports that the top couple of NZ players like Kieran Read are earning $1m a year now.

I think their great depth hides the fact that a lot of NZ players play over in Europe (probably substantially more than Australian players). It's those players outside the top up system that have the most to gain financially by going over there.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Inside Shoulder, doesn't it just come down to what is Pocock worth? When and how he is paid isn't really an issue.

Not a exact comparison, but akin to this type of scenario, I knew of at least theee of the large firms that during the GFC engaged highly talented graduates on a contract that paid them for 12 months, but didn't get them to do any work because during the downturn there was less work. They effectively said here is $XX thousand dollars to do as you please, but their contracts were that they were back in 12 months to work.

There were obvious incentives for both sides

Presumably those firms were in better shape than the ARU and presumably they weren't tightening the purse string at every level of the game they were supposed to foster while building themselves a white elephant in Moore Park.
If he's not playing he's not worth anything - except perhaps to World Wildlife Foundation or whichever political party it is he has his eye on.
As Kiwi you must understand the lure of the jersey and RWC2019 - that would have brought him back wherever he went.

 

[ACT Crusader]

They've had arguments and part of breaking the deadlock was allowing the very top players to have time overseas to receive significant payments for short stints (e.g. Carter, Nonu, Kaino) or having periods off without reduced pay (e.g. McCaw, Conrad Smith)

 

[Inside Shoulder]

They've had arguments and part of breaking the deadlock was allowing the very top players to have time overseas to receive significant payments for short stints (e.g. Carter, Nonu, Kaino) or having periods off without reduced pay (e.g. McCaw, Conrad Smith)

The mandated resting in world cup years?

 

[ACT Crusader]

Conrad got an EOYT off back in 2013. McCaw was given the 2013 Super rugby season and France test series off.

 

[Braveheart81]

The mandated resting in world cup years?

McCaw didn't play Super Rugby or June internationals in 2013.

If the $2.8m figure from Spiros is correct and the ARU decided that he was worth $1.2m a year for 2016 and 2018 and that him taking a year off with no rugby was likely to increase the length of his career (and that was in your interests), then you could decide that year is worth $400k to you and pay it.

Spreading the payments equally across the three years makes sense from a cashflow perspective.

If you decided that he was worth $1.4m a year to you and you were only able to contract him for 2016 and 2018 because he wasn't playing in 2017, surely it still makes sense to spread those payments across three years.

Now you could certainly argue that they shouldn't be paying him $1m a year but it certainly seems that is within his asking price internationally.

 

[I like to watch]

How much of the pie he gets is more an affordability issue rather than what he's worth.

Agree with BH, that the offers from overseas clubs were probably substantial given his profile, ability and leadership experience. So the ARU management made a call on the structure of a contract that had incentives for both sides.

Of course it's about affordability.
What if his market value was $3M? Do you still support paying him that,cos its market value?
My hypothetical values gave him 1/20th of the entire pool, if that's close to the mark,I think that's too much for any one player, regardless of his ability.
How many McMahons, Luke Jones etc could we have kept instead of all our eggs in 1 basket?

 

[Braveheart81]

Maybe 3 or 4 good players a year could be retained.

Maybe 2 or 3 of those players don't make the side when everyone is healthy.

I'm not really sure on the logic of matching the salary for the guys outside our best team so they don't go overseas and letting our best players go because they cost more.

Are we then just creating the test opportunities for those younger guys so that they too can have enough Wallaby tests and experience that they demand the biggest dollars overseas?

I don't know the answer but it seems that you have a better chance of making the Wallabies successful if you try and retain the players you think are the best rather than more players who aren't quite as good because they're a bit cheaper.

 

[ACT Crusader]

ILTW, the discussion centred more about giving him a year off from playing rugby whilst still being paid, which is a structure of contract issue. The ARU have already deemed he is worth whatever it is they have paid him (I don't know what the specifics are) and Pocock has agreed to that. Whether that's affordable is another question. I don't know if it is or not.

All I'll say on the affordability issue is that the ARU's hands aren't tied when it comes to negotiation table. The ARU hold several cards in its pocket other than money (e.g. Wallaby selection, flexible options, sabbaticals etc). A player like Pocock is also in a strong bargaining position as opposed to the other players you mention.

So really it comes down to nutting out a package deal that works for both parties. ARU has to think about the bigger picture - squad, optics, financials etc, whereas Pocock is concerned about his own future and wellbeing (like all players).

 

[I like to watch]

Maybe 3 or 4 good players a year could be retained.

Maybe 2 or 3 of those players don't make the side when everyone is healthy.

I'm not really sure on the logic of matching the salary for the guys outside our best team so they don't go overseas and letting our best players go because they cost more.

Are we then just creating the test opportunities for those younger guys so that they too can have enough Wallaby tests and experience that they demand the biggest dollars overseas?

I don't know the answer but it seems that you have a better chance of making the Wallabies successful if you try and retain the players you think are the best rather than more players who aren't quite as good because they're a bit cheaper.

No doubt, there's no absolute right or wrong call on who you pay what.
there is good solid reasoning for both viewpoints.
But it's there's more than a touch of all your eggs in one basket IMO.
If he goes down with a long term injury, that, combined with the opportunity cost of losing several other players to afford him would be crippling to the squad.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I don't know the answer but it seems that you have a better chance of making the Wallabies successful if you try and retain the players you think are the best rather than more players who aren't quite as good because they're a bit cheaper.

Thats putting it all on black and hoping he doesn't get injured.
The last 18 months have shown that the big names don't pull enough weight to make up for lack of depth.

 

[cyclopath]

Its a debate about the depth of the game. Do we need two 7s in Australia who are Wallaby level or with 5 teams at least 3 or 4 to ensure real competition for spots and genuinely competitive Super sides. Add McMahon into the mix and you have four genuinely good 7s with Alcock and a couple of others in depth. Certainly better than paying a bloke over the top money and leaving the cupboard bare and the teams uncompetitive. So we will be left with Pocock and Hooper and some depth players.

It is not even necessary to debate if Pocock is better than X. IMO contracts like his have added greatly to the decline of Australian Rugby, add in Elsom et al and you have a demonstrated focus in contracting that has eroded the depth of the Super sides and competition for Wallaby spots, and it is not just about money, but the ethical structure of the contracts and how people are paid for having time off, coming back to Australia and being virtually guaranteed Wallaby places etc. If you are a Gill or McMahon or Mowen, why bother - there is no integrity to the process and no genuine competition so regardless of how well you play or how much of a C%$$#% a bloke behaves you will not be selected.

Who, out of interest, is the C%$$#% that kept McMahon and Gill out? Conflating Gill's treatment in Qld with players like, I'm guessing, Beale is a stretch. Not even really part of the same issue.

 

[Gnostic]

Who, out of interest, is the C%$$#% that kept McMahon and Gill out? Conflating Gill's treatment in Qld with players like, I'm guessing, Beale is a stretch. Not even really part of the same issue.

The reference to lads seen on Tuesday next was about any single "X" player but there have been a few who continually acted in a poor manner over time and were treated with what would seem to most inequitably in comparison to players not as skilled shall we say "M" (mediocre) players. This goes back a bit further than the 3 Amigos as well.

It wasn't particularly about McMahon or Gill and their position, it is about the system itself. Short term gains by signing an individual for a season or two can and has IMO effected the integrity of the system as a whole, it can be justifiably seen as one that doesn't reward performance.

 

[Highlander35]

On top of that, I think players are starting to see through Chieka's "interest" horseshit that he's apparently been spouting to every Aussie under the sun.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

On top of that, I think players are starting to see through Chieka's "interest" horseshit that he's apparently been spouting to every Aussie under the sun.

Could you elaborate?
Do you mean he's been telling all and sundry he's interested in them for the Wobblies?

 

[cyclopath]

On top of that, I think players are starting to see through Chieka's "interest" horseshit that he's apparently been spouting to every Aussie under the sun.

So, as the national coach, should he just tell players they're no chance, or try to keep possible fringe players motivated and aiming to improve? I get the feeling he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't as far as some posters are concerned.

 

[kiap]

From today's latest over on The Roar – it's Spiro, so should be taken with a grain of salt – but on the money about no transparency.

​

We don’t know what the criteria is for the culling.​

​

We don’t know when the matter is going to be resolved or even how it is going to be resolved.​

​

And RUPA, the players’ union, demanded this week to know where the $6m of projected savings from the cull was going to go. So far, the ARU has been silent of this matter, as with most other matters.​

​

This practice by the ARU of keeping the rugby community in Australia fully in the dark about all the issues facing the game in this country has been driven by a nasty them-and-us complex.​

So, apparently, ol' mate Rob Clarke has compiled a rugby shit list for boss man Pulver:

“​

before leaving Rob listed for us supporters and opponents, enemies.​

​

”​

Nothing leaving the inner circle.

http://www.theroar.com.au/2017/06/2...e-current-mess-the-aru-has-a-list-of-enemies/

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I think the supporters of the present ARU administration should be disclosed: it is highly likely they need help.