What is the biggest mistake made with Australian Rugby?

[wamberal]

Not the biggest but more reflective of wrong priorities - paying Pocock $750k to have a year off rugby rather than giving it to club/community rugby

It is important to take all costs and benefits into account when criticising a management decision. $750k to Pocock is not $750K thrown away. There are some countervailing benefits, some monetary (the publicity value that he generates, the fact that he will probably be a better player for having time off, the fact that his playing career has probably been lengthened), and some intangible. His value as a mentor in the squad, and as a real leader, whether as captain or not.

It is also certain that some, maybe all, of the $750k would have been spent in other ways to do with the elite level of players, and not spent on the "grassroots". Whatever they are.

Similar analyses apply to the recruitment of players from other codes, and other unions. Lote, for example, and Folau, pay for themselves in free publicity.

Lote was a huge drawcard, maybe it is a coincidence that crowds at home Tahs games dived after his banishment from the sport. But what is not in dispute is that he was enormously popular, particularly with the kids. Players like these also boost the value of sponsorships.


Potgieter won the Tahs a championship.

Nothing in the world of professional sport is that simple.

 

[Leo86]

the fact that he will probably be a better player for having time off, the fact that his playing career has probably been lengthened)

He is playing in Japan. . .

 

[dru]

It is important to take all costs and benefits into account when criticising a management decision. $750k to Pocock is not $750K thrown away. There are some countervailing benefits, some monetary (the publicity value that he generates, the fact that he will probably be a better player for having time off, the fact that his playing career has probably been lengthened), and some intangible. His value as a mentor in the squad, and as a real leader, whether as captain or not.

It is also certain that some, maybe all, of the $750k would have been spent in other ways to do with the elite level of players, and not spent on the "grassroots". Whatever they are.

Similar analyses apply to the recruitment of players from other codes, and other unions. Lote, for example, and Folau, pay for themselves in free publicity.

Lote was a huge drawcard, maybe it is a coincidence that crowds at home Tahs games dived after his banishment from the sport. But what is not in dispute is that he was enormously popular, particularly with the kids. Players like these also boost the value of sponsorships.


Potgieter won the Tahs a championship.

Nothing in the world of professional sport is that simple.

More than that Wam, as I understand it, Pocock negotiates 2 year’s wages spread over 3 years, with a year out. It doesn’t cost anything. There is a risk of what happens if he doesn’t return for the full period. But everything going to plan, there is no cost.

 

[jimmydubs]

More than that Wam, as I understand it, Pocock negotiates 2 year’s wages spread over 3 years, with a year out. It doesn’t cost anything. There is a risk of what happens if he doesn’t return for the full period. But everything going to plan, there is no cost.

Could've let him go, kept Gill and put the difference into community rugby. Pocock is a great player but he's not worth what they're paying him.

Regardless the decision is still stupid if he gets injured in Japan and is out for the next year...

 

[wamberal]

Okay, let us get a bit specific. I would be really interested to see specific recommendations as to how various sums of money should be spent on the "grass roots".


I put the phrase in inverted commas, because it so vague. Does it mean junior rugby? Schools rugby? Club rugby? Subbies?


If, for the sake of argument, we suddenly had $750K to spend, how should it be spent, in specifics?

 

[Rugbynutter39]

It is important to take all costs and benefits into account when criticising a management decision. $750k to Pocock is not $750K thrown away. There are some countervailing benefits, some monetary (the publicity value that he generates, the fact that he will probably be a better player for having time off, the fact that his playing career has probably been lengthened), and some intangible. His value as a mentor in the squad, and as a real leader, whether as captain or not.

It is also certain that some, maybe all, of the $750k would have been spent in other ways to do with the elite level of players, and not spent on the "grassroots". Whatever they are.

Similar analyses apply to the recruitment of players from other codes, and other unions. Lote, for example, and Folau, pay for themselves in free publicity.

Lote was a huge drawcard, maybe it is a coincidence that crowds at home Tahs games dived after his banishment from the sport. But what is not in dispute is that he was enormously popular, particularly with the kids. Players like these also boost the value of sponsorships.


Potgieter won the Tahs a championship.

Nothing in the world of professional sport is that simple.

The big point of difference is he was paid that as a sabbatical and given limited shelf life of players seriously no problem with him taking a year off but surely that should be at his own expense. It is like we would subsidise a player to play in Europe for a year.....I think this is a bad precedent personally.

 

[wamberal]

Fair enough. I was just trying to make the point that these sorts of decisions are never simple.


Anyway, what would you do with the $750K?

 

[Brumby Runner]

How many times does it need to be said that Pocock did not get $750k or anything for not playing. He and the ARU/Brumbies negotiated a two year contract worth $Xm which was spread over three years to allow him the sabbatical. It cost not a cent more for him to take the year off. Why is a sabbatical for arguably the best Aussie player so criticised when those taken by top NZ players are applauded as being wise moves? Hypocritical, if you ask me.

 

[jimmydubs]

Okay, let us get a bit specific. I would be really interested to see specific recommendations as to how various sums of money should be spent on the "grass roots".


I put the phrase in inverted commas, because it so vague. Does it mean junior rugby? Schools rugby? Club rugby? Subbies?


If, for the sake of argument, we suddenly had $750K to spend, how should it be spent, in specifics?

Delaying bankruptcy

 

[dru]

Could've let him go, kept Gill and put the difference into community rugby. Pocock is a great player but he's not worth what they're paying him.

Regardless the decision is still stupid if he gets injured in Japan and is out for the next year.

J-dub, I’m with you but unfortunately we are complaining about who Super Rugby values and who they don’t. I’d tak Gill every time over Hooper or Pocock. Others have different thoughts.

The claim against Pocock though is fundamentally different. He negotiated a novel deal, but a deal with fairness based on his market worth. This stuff about “we should have invested in grass roots not Pocock having a sabatical” is simple BS. Unless of course my understanding of the deal is wrong.

 

[Slim 293]

Could've let him go, kept Gill and put the difference into community rugby. Pocock is a great player but he's not worth what they're paying him.

1. Gill is a great player, but he's no David Pocock.

2. Pocock is probably worth more than what the ARU are paying him.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Slim, he would probably be worth more as a 7 than as an 8 also.

 

[jimmydubs]

How many times does it need to be said that Pocock did not get $750k or anything for not playing. He and the ARU/Brumbies negotiated a two year contract worth $Xm which was spread over three years to allow him the sabbatical. It cost not a cent more for him to take the year off. Why is a sabbatical for arguably the best Aussie player so criticised when those taken by top NZ players are applauded as being wise moves? Hypocritical, if you ask me.

Probably about as many times as it needs to be said that paying a player that much for 2 years is ridiculous. He is not worth it is the argument I make, I don't care if they pay him over 50 years for 2 years of rugby.
You can take exception to that and tell me he's Gods gift to rugby and should be paid even more but reading for the umpteenth time about the structure of the serious overpayment (imho) is a bit yawn.

I mean it's 1.5 times genia and everyone has their panties in a twist about that.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I won't agree nor disagree about the amount of his contract JD. It just happens to be the agreed value between him and his employer in a free market situation. Isn't that what this country is all about? Bankers aside of course.

 

[jimmydubs]

1. Gill is a great player, but he's no David Pocock.

2. Pocock is probably worth more than what the ARU are paying him.

Respectfully disagree on 2. And he's not so much better than Gill than the money they pay.
Anyhow back to poor aru decisions.
Making Hooper captain when your paying the best 7 in the country $1.2 million next year to probably play ordinarily at 8 instead of great ar 7?

 

[Tex]

Considering the Rebels have changed hands 3 times each time being on the brink of bankruptcy and bleeding the ARU dry I would say choosing Perth in 2004 was the right call...

See you in 2018.

x2 to the about splashing dollars on league names and blokes on sabbatical. Really need to reset expectations in that department.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

 

[jimmydubs]

I won't agree nor disagree about the amount of his contract JD. It just happens to be the agreed value between him and his employer in a free market situation. Isn't that what this country is all about? Bankers aside of course.

True. Just could've spent that money on, oh well probably lawyers knowing the aru!

 

[Sully]

Mods in the heading of the thread I misspelt 'WITH" - can't seem to edit it to fix it. Could one of you fix it pls if easy to do.

NO! We refuse on principle. It's clearly the biggest mistake on this thread on Australian Rugby

 

[Rugbynutter39]

J-dub, I’m with you but unfortunately we are complaining about who Super Rugby values and who they don’t. I’d tak Gill every time over Hooper or Pocock. Others have different thoughts.

The claim against Pocock though is fundamentally different. He negotiated a novel deal, but a deal with fairness based on his market worth. This stuff about “we should have invested in grass roots not Pocock having a sabatical” is simple BS. Unless of course my understanding of the deal is wrong.

I suppose for me in terms of the precedent Pocock's deal sets I think it was not a good business decision. Do we really want to be setting expectations that for all our senior high profile players a the peak of their playing power that we are prepared to pay them sabbaticals to roam the world for a year at our expense. I personally think we would have been better to let Pocock go then set that dangerous precedent and spend the $750k in a year where money was tight on more worthwhile investments in grass roots.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

NO! We refuse on principle. It's clearly the biggest mistake on this thread on Australian Rugby

I agree Sully so G&GR can expect my request in the next 48-72 hours to remove myself as a member of G&GR for leading to the downfall of Australian rugby with my poor typing/spelling skills. As a rugby keyboard warrior the Australian Rugby public deserve better!