Where to for Super Rugby?

[Brumby Runner]

My understanding is that each Super Rugby franchise has a cap on their total payments to players and presumably they are all currently operating to that cap. An increase in supply of money to meet the increased demand from the extra supply of players would necessitate a significant rise in the cap. Has that been announced? I was also under the impression the ARU needs the extra money that is theoretically available from cutting the Force to stave off their own financial problems and more immediately to pay out the contracts for the Force players.

The two outcomes I think we can be sure of resulting from the Force axing, are first that increased numbers of players will head off shore (whether they be existing Super Rugby players or next rung below displaced by excess Super Rugby players) and that player payments in this country will decline. The only hope on the horizon for avoiding these outcomes is the IPRC being proposed by Andrew Forrest. The most dire outcome, being one that is certainly a possibility, is that another or other Super Rugby franchises go broke or the ARU goes broke before the end of the current Super Rugby broadcasting deal.

 

[barbarian]

Under the RUPA agreement a set percentage of revenue is given to the players each year. If there are less players but the same amount of revenue (which is the case given the same TV deal applies) then the remaining players get more.

That is my understanding of the situation, anyway BR. Could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time!
.

 

[kiap]

Under the RUPA agreement

Expires on 31 December.

I'm sure there'll be some sort of increase in average salary. Won't necessarily be big. No automatic rollover.

With the ARU crying poor (or even possibly going bust by 2020) it will require negotiating.

Even the assumption there'll be fewer players needs to be quantified, given Force players renewing deals before the chop.

(which is the case given the same TV deal applies)

The irony.

 

[KevinO]

Ok finally caught up on this thread,

1) Strike action - The wallabies squad a few years ago could not even reach an agreement about sharing the pay, tour that fell a day or two short of the whole tour party getting equal share in match day payments.

2) Two years ago the ARU was selling BS about how the new TV deal and expansion was the answer to there problems. Increased revenue la da di da

Now they can't afford 5 teams, whats the real truth? SANZAR wanted to get back to 15 team comp to keep NZ happy and the ARU butt heads decided they would try make some more money by nominating to cut a team.

3) RUPA, have failed as an organization that is designed to support players. They really needed to be more vocal from the word go. Put the pressure on the players of all clubs to speak out.

 

[TOCC]

Under the RUPA agreement a set percentage of revenue is given to the players each year. If there are less players but the same amount of revenue (which is the case given the same TV deal applies) then the remaining players get more.

That is my understanding of the situation, anyway BR. Could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time!
.

There's a lot of variables...
It's no longer a year on year percentage, it's calculated over the average revenue of the ARU for a 4 year cycle..

Based on those forecasts released by the ARU, the ARU is still in a financial predicament even with a team being cut. ARU never filled the gaps with what those reports and forecasts actually meant, but if it's falling revenue, then that impacts on what the players allocation is.

 

[mst]

^^^^^ some insight:

In the aftermath of the Western Force’s axing, Rugby Union Players’ Association chief executive Ross Xenos will lead talks on behalf of players and has questioned how the ARU is earning an extra $30 million a year through their broadcast deal yet still crying poor.

Xenos also suggested he will seek to abolish the “Giteau Law”, allowing 60-Test capped Wallabies to play overseas but still be eligible for Test selection, in the new round of negotiations.

“Is allowing certain players to be picked from overseas actually disincentivising younger players from staying in Australian rugby, because they feel like they’ll always be too far back in the pecking order that getting to a gold jumper is too far in the distance for them.

“And as a result the overseas opportunities are too strong to deny.

“It’s something we need to look at, because the volume of players currently playing overseas has increased significantly over the last few years.


“Is that because of the Giteau law or is that a coincidence? I don’t know.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...w/news-story/17d4abafc3a858a96fddac35029b154e

The Rugby Union Players’ Association (RUPA) will push to raise or even eliminate the salary cap in its upcoming collective bargaining agreement negotiations, as Australia’s players contemplate a future with one less Super Rugby team.

RUPA chief Ross Xenos said the structure of Australian rugby, with Test players receiving ARU top-ups, meant a salary cap did not force talent to be evenly spread across franchises.

http://www.rugby.com.au/news/2017/04/11/07/42/rupa-xenos-cba

 

[BLR]

In the aftermath of the Western Force’s axing, Rugby Union Players’ Association chief executive Ross Xenos will lead talks on behalf of players and has questioned how the ARU is earning an extra $30 million a year through their broadcast deal yet still crying poor.


The Rugby Union Players’ Association (RUPA) will push to raise or even eliminate the salary cap in its upcoming collective bargaining agreement negotiations, as Australia’s players contemplate a future with one less Super Rugby team.

RUPA chief Ross Xenos said the structure of Australian rugby, with Test players receiving ARU top-ups, meant a salary cap did not force talent to be evenly spread across franchises.

1. What a moron, why would he say that AFTER the axing and not before. (I know the answer, CBA time not being around, at least try)

2 & 3: I remember reading way when the start of the cutting saga that ARU had offered to RUPA if they fell into line this exact thing, elimination of top ups and a rise in the salary cap. I would not be surprised at all if this gets through easily as the hand shake to get it done was made back in April or before to ensure RUPA's silence.

 

[jimmydubs]

Aside from the politic as of how it may have/will be agreed that BLR raises. I think doing away with topups and then adjusting the salary cap accordingly is a good thing. Wobblies get match payments and maybe a squad allowance.

I know the other sides of the argument. Just for me I don't see how you can have a professional sporting comp with competition between the national sides with topups in the background.

As this post is too boring I'll add in #toomanytahstopups for good measure

 

[half]

Looking at the crowd tonight in Canberra and last week at NIB and you wonder aloud why the Force.

 

[Slim 293]

Looking at the crowd tonight in Canberra and last week at NIB and you wonder aloud why the Force.

They were both shit crowds........ only a few thousand difference. It's also not the smallest Wallabies crowd this year.

 

[TOCC]

It's hard to justify tests in Canberra with crowds like that.. and the stadium/corporate support doesn't justify a larger test match against the All Blacks or Springboks.

Looking forward, I think the Wallabies will have to consider taking a test match north to the new Townsville staidum when it's open.

 

[Slim 293]

It's hard to justify tests in Canberra with crowds like that..

If we apply that justification across the board we won't have any tests outside of Brisbane or Sydney...........

 

[half]

Looking forward, I think the Wallabies will have to consider taking a test match north to the new Townsville staidum when it's open.

I think you are right the Matilda's drew a bigger crowd. Newcastle is another place for smaller test matches. We have to regroup and that means going were your strength is.

 

[TOCC]

If we apply that justification across the board we won't have any tests outside of Brisbane or Sydney.....

Gold Coast was last city to host Argentina to an equally small crowd, and they haven't had a test match scheduled since.. that's the reality of it slim.. until Canberra get its new stadium and improved corporate facilities to justify hosting a larger team, it may get the occasional lower tier test match, but if fans don't come out and watch then it makes it hard to justify bringing another test match back anytime soon.

Melbourne and Perth have the facilities to host higher caliber teams and draw the larger crowds, hence they will continue to host test matches.

 

[TOCC]

I think you are right the Matilda's drew a bigger crowd. Newcastle is another place for smaller test matches. We have to regroup and that means going were your strength is.

And Parramatta when the upgrade is done..

 

[Strewthcobber]

18k in Perth in 2013, 14k at Gold Coast in 2014, 16k in Perth in 2016 and 14k in Canberra this year.

Isn't the story that Argentina games can't draw a crowd?

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[Rugbynutter39]

18k in Perth in 2013, 14k at Gold Coast in 2014, 16k in Perth in 2016 and 14k in Canberra this year.

Isn't the story that Argentina games can't draw a crowd?

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

Yep and why those matches will be played at Canberra, Gold Coast etc. and why places like Canberra etc will never get games involving teams with more fan appeal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Strewthcobber]

Less than 500 in attendance for southern kings at home v Leinster

Kings went down 31-10 at home

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[dru]

Strewthcobber - PE is a small population and in one of the poorest areas of RSA. I had anticipated this sort of issue. It's not the sort of result they want if gate receipts are important financially. SARU or the Ministry for Sport is going to be propping these guys if they are to survive.

 

[chibimatty]

I wonder if that crowd was a protest vote?