ARU contracting process - how could it be improved?
- Thread starter fatprop
- Start date
- Status
Scotty
David Codey (61)
The issue with the ARU providing match payments only, is that it doesn't allow for the relative value of a particular player to a team, or a particular player in marketing the game. eg Could we really say that a Horne is as important to a team as a Genia or Pocock? Payments have to a allow for a players worth, and the requirements of that player to be the face of the game.
I'd look at more money to Super teams, but the extra money must go to Oz players only. In fact I would have all money that the ARU provides going to Oz players (Super teams will need to come up with their own funds for marquee players).
I'd then have wider wallaby training squad, squad, reserve and run-on payments from the ARU on top of that. In addition to this the ARU would then have to contract their own 'marquee players'. Guys that are both critical to the performance of the wallabies, and are to be used heavily in marketing campaigns for the sport. There might be 10-15 of these each year.
I'd look at more money to Super teams, but the extra money must go to Oz players only. In fact I would have all money that the ARU provides going to Oz players (Super teams will need to come up with their own funds for marquee players).
I'd then have wider wallaby training squad, squad, reserve and run-on payments from the ARU on top of that. In addition to this the ARU would then have to contract their own 'marquee players'. Guys that are both critical to the performance of the wallabies, and are to be used heavily in marketing campaigns for the sport. There might be 10-15 of these each year.
Scotty
David Codey (61)
More money to super teams would mitigate this though.
It is what it is
John Solomon (38)
Assuming the ARU offers are fair and competitive;
Place a definitive expiry date on every written offer.
Once talks have finalised, allow only 30 days before the written offer expires.
This should minimise opportunities for the player and/or their agent to use the ARU offer to shop around for a better deal.........30 days should be fine.
If you wanted to get tricky;
Have 'Offer 1' with a 30 day expiry as above
Have a reduced 'Offer 2' with a 60 day expiration.
This way a player and agent know up front that if they delay signing 'Offer 1' within 30 days, it's going to cost both of them $$$ and/or terms.
This way there are no surprises for either party, yet consequences for not acting hastily.
Place a definitive expiry date on every written offer.
Once talks have finalised, allow only 30 days before the written offer expires.
This should minimise opportunities for the player and/or their agent to use the ARU offer to shop around for a better deal.........30 days should be fine.
If you wanted to get tricky;
Have 'Offer 1' with a 30 day expiry as above
Have a reduced 'Offer 2' with a 60 day expiration.
This way a player and agent know up front that if they delay signing 'Offer 1' within 30 days, it's going to cost both of them $$$ and/or terms.
This way there are no surprises for either party, yet consequences for not acting hastily.
It is what it is
John Solomon (38)
The ARU is battling to support itself, let alone support all the Super franchises.
Scotty
David Codey (61)
They wouldn't be spending anymore, simply moving top-up wallaby spending to the super rugby teams.
This half half system isn't working.
Bardon
Peter Fenwicke (45)
You can have the best contact system in the world and it will work great 95% of the time but when you get the combination of QC (Quade Cooper), his agent and the ARU there will be problem no matter what system is in place. It's impossible to design a perfect system as if someone wants to take issue with the system they'll find a way.
Now that's out of the way here's some ideas for the contract system.
I like the idea Mark_S had to pay more for winning but applied at a Wallaby level rather than franchise level. Also the formula could be tweaked to take into account the world ranking of the opposition, so a win against the world No. 1 or No. 2 if Aus reclaim No. 1 at some point with be worth more than a win against No. 4.
For the club/franchise level the player should be paid according to their worth to the franchise. Top ups to contracts could include a slice of jersey sales above a certain threshold, a portion gate receipts if the average gate is above a certain level. The player cut only coming from that portion above the target. If by working together the players and the franchise can increase revenue then the players should be getting a cut.
The easiest way to do that is to be successful so the players are being rewarded for having a successful season but if they flop the next season those payments were only one off relating to the successful season. Franchises shouldn't be restricted to salary caps if they can generate the money to pay higher wages but similarly they shouldn't be allowed to run themselves into the ground do to spiralling wages.
Linking more of players contracts either to revenue generation or the overall profit of the franchise would make it more sustainable.
If the top up contracts remain then there should be more of a united effort between the ARU and franchises when negotiating with players. It shouldn't be the case as it is at the moment that a player agrees his contract with his club then goes to the ARU for another round of negotiation. For those on Wallaby top up contracts they should be given one combined offer from the ARU and franchise. Let the ARU and the franchise negotiate prior to making the offer in terms of who pays what and what happens if the players wants more.
The ARU and franchise seriously need to mend their relationship or they'll end up with a situation similar to the one in England. Both parties should be working together to improve things at franchise and Wallaby level rather than the current situation of the ARU announcing initiatives without consulting the franchises and the franchises pointing the finger at the ARU saying we've negotiated our part of the contract it's in their hands now.
Hopefully whoever takes over the ARU actually realises that a strong Wallaby future depends on having strong, competitive, economically sound franchises and that it's in everyone's interest to work together.
Now that's out of the way here's some ideas for the contract system.
I like the idea Mark_S had to pay more for winning but applied at a Wallaby level rather than franchise level. Also the formula could be tweaked to take into account the world ranking of the opposition, so a win against the world No. 1 or No. 2 if Aus reclaim No. 1 at some point with be worth more than a win against No. 4.
For the club/franchise level the player should be paid according to their worth to the franchise. Top ups to contracts could include a slice of jersey sales above a certain threshold, a portion gate receipts if the average gate is above a certain level. The player cut only coming from that portion above the target. If by working together the players and the franchise can increase revenue then the players should be getting a cut.
The easiest way to do that is to be successful so the players are being rewarded for having a successful season but if they flop the next season those payments were only one off relating to the successful season. Franchises shouldn't be restricted to salary caps if they can generate the money to pay higher wages but similarly they shouldn't be allowed to run themselves into the ground do to spiralling wages.
Linking more of players contracts either to revenue generation or the overall profit of the franchise would make it more sustainable.
If the top up contracts remain then there should be more of a united effort between the ARU and franchises when negotiating with players. It shouldn't be the case as it is at the moment that a player agrees his contract with his club then goes to the ARU for another round of negotiation. For those on Wallaby top up contracts they should be given one combined offer from the ARU and franchise. Let the ARU and the franchise negotiate prior to making the offer in terms of who pays what and what happens if the players wants more.
The ARU and franchise seriously need to mend their relationship or they'll end up with a situation similar to the one in England. Both parties should be working together to improve things at franchise and Wallaby level rather than the current situation of the ARU announcing initiatives without consulting the franchises and the franchises pointing the finger at the ARU saying we've negotiated our part of the contract it's in their hands now.
Hopefully whoever takes over the ARU actually realises that a strong Wallaby future depends on having strong, competitive, economically sound franchises and that it's in everyone's interest to work together.
The current system isn't that bad. Players have a base guaranteed income plus they receive match payments for being selected in the test. Players also get a living away from home allowance while they are away. This way it rewards players who are being selected.
For this tour I think the players receive around $250 a day for living away from home plus around $16K a test (not sure on this figure but is what I was told by someone). So if you are on tour and play all for tests you'll make around $40K on top of your base salary.
I do think a lot of issues could be solved with better timeframes on contract negotiations.
For this tour I think the players receive around $250 a day for living away from home plus around $16K a test (not sure on this figure but is what I was told by someone). So if you are on tour and play all for tests you'll make around $40K on top of your base salary.
I do think a lot of issues could be solved with better timeframes on contract negotiations.
dangerousdave
Frank Nicholson (4)
Regarding the '100 test bonus' that people were talking about earlier and the problem of the sick incentive for the ARU to then bench players on their 99th test:
One option would be to have a 'match payment scale' i.e. you get 1k for your first wallaby match, 2k for your second etc. You would expect Sharpie to be getting something like double the 'average' so if wallabies are getting $16k at the moment then something like $30 would be appropriate for a centurion. $20k for a half centurion. This scale is actually logarithmic rather than linear for those of you doing the math, but I can't be bothered to work it out exactly.
The advantages of this scale is that encourages entrenched wallabies to stay instead of buggering off to Europe. Young, inexperienced wallabies do not need to be paid so much because they are playing for their careers and reputation. Also, they are unproven, we are taking a risk by putting them on the field and giving them valuable experience at the highest level, that should be (and is) enough for most young players.
One option would be to have a 'match payment scale' i.e. you get 1k for your first wallaby match, 2k for your second etc. You would expect Sharpie to be getting something like double the 'average' so if wallabies are getting $16k at the moment then something like $30 would be appropriate for a centurion. $20k for a half centurion. This scale is actually logarithmic rather than linear for those of you doing the math, but I can't be bothered to work it out exactly.
The advantages of this scale is that encourages entrenched wallabies to stay instead of buggering off to Europe. Young, inexperienced wallabies do not need to be paid so much because they are playing for their careers and reputation. Also, they are unproven, we are taking a risk by putting them on the field and giving them valuable experience at the highest level, that should be (and is) enough for most young players.
As Jets said - it doesn't seem the money carve up that's the problem in the process (apart from everyone always wanting more....)
The current issue is the tri-party contracting system, where a player can only be signed to a Super team if the ARU sign the contract as well.
I don't really see the relevance of the power of veto for the ARU over a super rugby player (outside of the quotas they stipulate as part of licences). If the ARU doesn't want to top a guy up, they don't have to anyway.
But the whole time a player is wrangling the top up with the ARU, the Super contract is invalid. This is what's caused all the who-ha
The current issue is the tri-party contracting system, where a player can only be signed to a Super team if the ARU sign the contract as well.
I don't really see the relevance of the power of veto for the ARU over a super rugby player (outside of the quotas they stipulate as part of licences). If the ARU doesn't want to top a guy up, they don't have to anyway.
But the whole time a player is wrangling the top up with the ARU, the Super contract is invalid. This is what's caused all the who-ha
Caputo
Billy Sheehan (19)
So he now gets screwed over for being injured on Wallaby duty and they can say his not in the best three in his position.
T
TOCC
Guest
Should Pocock now be offered less given the rise of Hooper?
The rise of Hooper would not have been good for Bam Bam's negotiating position.
There is a significant diference between a monopoly (pre Hooper) and a duopoly (post Hooper).
There is a significant diference between a monopoly (pre Hooper) and a duopoly (post Hooper).
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
Only if he starts fighting bouncers when he's pissed,and starts dissing his boss.
oh woops he doesn't have a track record of being a complete dick and troublemaker.So maybe he might even get a pay rise, as he actually performs well in the Yellow jersey.
See any difference at all between the two?
mark_s
Chilla Wilson (44)
No, hooper is great but Pocock world class. We need to keep both.
- Status