Aussie Player Exodus

[Gnostic]

Any top-up policy based around injury would set a horrendously bad precedent and would only push players overseas by the boatload. These guys aren't getting hurt by dancing too hard in the club - it's almost always while playing for club or country.

You don't take away a guy's guaranteed money because he got hurt playing or training for you. You take away the playing-based incentives in their contract when they can't play, it's how just about every major sporting organization I can think of structures their contracts.

Here's some fun questions for the lawyers here to chew on under the hypothesis of an injury-based top-up package:

1. What defines "injury prone"?
2. When does a player reach the threshold where they are considered an injury liability?
3. When does a player become available for a top-up again, if ever? How long does it take to become classified again as worthy of a top-up?
4. What kind of jackass agent would ever let their player sign a contract in which there is no guaranteed money should the player become injured playing for their employer?

Sounds a lot like how the Rugby League got stayed in the first place.

 

[Strewthcobber]

That's the thing isn't it Wamberal.

I reckon Australian rugby is better off if Palu is at the world cup next year. To achieve that aim though you have to make the offer in Aug 2013, more than 2 years beforehand.

He may end up playing 30 tests, or 0. You guarantee he plays 0 if you don't make the offer.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Better judges than me (or, dare I say it, you) made the call based upon the belief that Palu was worth it.

You are just another one in a long line of experts who could do a better job, although to be fair, you are relying on the benefit of hindsight.

I have been saying it for some time.
It would be intriguing to work out how much Palu's "promise" has cost oz rugby per game he's played. How many blokes missed out on a few $$ in consequence of those errors in judgment.
As for wanting him at RWC2015 I must check sportbets odds on him being fit to play.
No one needs to define "injury prone" - the point was passed long ago in his case.

 

[Quick Hands]

The ARU top-up system is a function of the top-down way the game is structured in Australia. The majority of revenue for the game is earnt by the Wallabies brand and the ARU are the principal employer of the top players, the super provinces are the next level down and employ all professional rugby players in Australia. Some super rugby franchises make a small profit, but other run at a loss and they all receive a good deal of their funding from the ARU. The clubs produce players, but aren't employers as such and exist as a break-even/subsistence type model.

Under this system the ARU have to top-up players who are in demand in the marketplace or at least some of those players will go elsewhere. Players who aren't in high demand either overseas or from other sports, will rarely if ever attract a top-up. When you are the principal employer of the players, you can't just pay match payments if you want to keep the best players - there has to be a guaranteed minimum amount in the contract.

In Europe by contrast, they have a bottom-up system. In this system, the clubs are the principal employers and are profit making entities - i.e. the generate enough money to be independent from the national union. Under this system, there is no top-up and players are paid for a set payment for each test appearence.

I'm not advocating for or against either system - they each have their pros and cons - but as long as rugby in Australia is top-down, then the ARU top-up system is a necessary evil.

EDIT: The proposed ARU NPF and NIL are also a product of the top-down system.

 

[Omar Comin']

A decent amount of the funding super rugby franchises receive from the ARU is from the value of the super rugby broadcasting and sponsorship rights. French and English clubs receive similar distributions but the bodies that run and negotiate deals for the Aviva Premiership and Top 14 are independent of the unions.

Also, I'm not sure if this happens in France (I would guess not), but in England the RFU pay clubs an incentive to have a certain % of England eligible players in their squads (can't remember what the base requirement is - I think something like 65-70%). So it's not entirely bottom up. The RFU's revenues are massive. Almost $300 million last year.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I'm not advocating for or against either system - they each have their pros and cons - but as long as rugby in Australia is top-down, then the ARU top-up system is a necessary evil.

I wonder if it might work better, or fairer, if the top ups were on a one year basis instead of two?

 

[Bardon]

Wouldn't one year top-ups also mean one year contracts for anyone on a top up? I mean who in their right mind would sign a 2 year contract on the strength of a one year top-up?

That's a lot of uncertainty for teams and a lot of talent that's on the market every single year.

 

[Quick Hands]

The top-up system by its very nature is problematic in that it essentially requires the ARU to predict who will be the best players for the next 2 years. It's really an impossible task as injuries, form and the arrival of new players from below will always change who the best/most deserving players are.

It's a necessary evil in that it is a mechanism for keeping certain players in Australia. I'm not sure that in our current position that there is a viable alternative, not in the short term anyway.

 

[Brumby Runner]

Wouldn't one year top-ups also mean one year contracts for anyone on a top up? I mean who in their right mind would sign a 2 year contract on the strength of a one year top-up?

That's a lot of uncertainty for teams and a lot of talent that's on the market every single year.

It's my understanding that there are two contracts, one with the Super franchise and one with the ARU. Is that correct? If that is so, then it does stand to reason that both should be for the same duration and with the same start and end dates. But couldn't the ARU contract under which the top up is presumably offered, simply allow for a fixed one year top up amount with a formula taking into account the number of tests played in that year and likely duration of any ongoing injury to calculate the amount in the second year? If necessary, minimum and maximum amounts for the second year could also be specified, but there would be more flexibility built into the contract system.

Could take a lot of heat off the ARU in terms of paying out large amounts to non-players, and give them a bit of a bank each year to offer to other worthy candidates.

 

[Braveheart81]

I think the most poignant points in the last few pages of this thread are:

- If you're not in the Wallaby 23 or very, very close to it when everyone is fit then you probably don't get a top up.

- The ARU has little choice but to direct the most money at the highest profile players because they are the ones in most demand from foreign clubs and the NRL.

- There seems to be a correlation between forwards who get injured a lot and those that provide the most impact at test level. It's a catch 22 but for 5+ years every coach has selected Palu when fit. Deciding not to try and re-sign a player who has been injured a lot is difficult when every coach pencils that name in on their preferred teamsheet when everyone is healthy.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Sometimes - often?- coaches have to be protected from themselves

 

[Braveheart81]

Sometimes - often?- coaches have to be protected from themselves

Ben Mowen is pretty much the only test quality backrower who has been lost because they weren't paid enough. He had a short stint as a Wallaby and was much better at 6 than at 8.

Whilst the ARU/McKenzie could have probably pulled out more stops to try and keep him, his reasoning for leaving sounded like it wasn't entirely down to money and there didn't seem to be any great wrangling trying to strike a better deal with the ARU. He just left.

Higginbotham, McCalman and Palu probably all have top up contracts. All of them have had significant injuries in recent years. Number 8 seems to be the most punishing position in the team if you look at the frequency players get injured.

It seems like an almost impossible concept to provide top up contracts to players who are reliably available but don't make your best side over the players who get picked ahead of them when available.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Palu is a special case-has he ever finished a season?
But I've put my point.

 

[Brumby Runner]

- There seems to be a correlation between forwards who get injured a lot and those that provide the most impact at test level. It's a catch 22 but for 5+ years every coach has selected Palu when fit. Deciding not to try and re-sign a player who has been injured a lot is difficult when every coach pencils that name in on their preferred teamsheet when everyone is healthy.

But the point is, that this will not always be the case. Using Cliff as an example, we could be correct in saying that, if fit, he will be Cheika's first choice No 8 through the whole of the 2015 year. But he may not be in 2016 if his form drops off due to age or whatever. But if he's signed a two year contract with fixed top up then there could well be a whole year in which he receives the benefit without having to earn it.

I'm not saying that this will, or might be likely to happen in Cliff's case; just using him as an example. The same scenario could apply to any player who signs with a two year top up in 2015. Just seems unnecessary to me.

 

[Quick Hands]

But the point is, that this will not always be the case. Using Cliff as an example, we could be correct in saying that, if fit, he will be Cheika's first choice No 8 through the whole of the 2015 year. But he may not be in 2016 if his form drops off due to age or whatever. But if he's signed a two year contract with fixed top up then there could well be a whole year in which he receives the benefit without having to earn it.

I'm not saying that this will, or might be likely to happen in Cliff's case; just using him as an example. The same scenario could apply to any player who signs with a two year top up in 2015. Just seems unnecessary to me.

It seems to me that the only immediate solution to the issue would be for the ARU to get out of the contracting business altogether and fund the super sides so that they can be the principal employers and pay the best players the highest amount. All Wallabies would be paid per test only. No change to the amount of money available to the players, just who pays it to them and who decides whom to pay.

At the moment the ARU are in the marketplace and this creates winners and losers amongst the Wallabies and puts the ARU in a difficult position. Let the super teams invest in the players.

 

[Braveheart81]

But the point is, that this will not always be the case. Using Cliff as an example, we could be correct in saying that, if fit, he will be Cheika's first choice No 8 through the whole of the 2015 year. But he may not be in 2016 if his form drops off due to age or whatever. But if he's signed a two year contract with fixed top up then there could well be a whole year in which he receives the benefit without having to earn it.

AFAIK Palu was signed for two years at the end of 2013. Given his age, I'd be highly surprised if he was offered another top up unless he has a very good 2015 and even then I'd expect it would be a single year proposition.

Given the physical nature of the sport, invariably the ARU will get very little value out of at least a couple of the 25 top up contracts due to injuries. Pocock being the most obvious example in the last couple of years. It's an unfortunate fact of life.

It seems to me that the only immediate solution to the issue would be for the ARU to get out of the contracting business altogether and fund the super sides so that they can be the principal employers and pay the best players the highest amount. All Wallabies would be paid per test only. No change to the amount of money available to the players, just who pays it to them and who decides whom to pay.

At the moment the ARU are in the marketplace and this creates winners and losers amongst the Wallabies and puts the ARU in a difficult position. Let the super teams invest in the players.

I think this would be disastrous for the Wallabies. The interests of the Super Rugby sides and the Wallabies aren't directly aligned.

Props are far more valuable at test level than Super Rugby level. Hard to see any of our props getting a good deal under this method.

7s, 9s, and 10s are amongst the most critical positions for any team. As a result, if the Super Rugby sides were solely in charge of signing players, we'd have players being paid very highly who aren't core to the Wallabies. I think there would also be the tendency to seek more imports in these sort of positions wherever local depth isn't that great.

At the moment we have a system where roughly, the 25 players deemed most important to the Wallabies are the highest paid. If the Super Rugby sides were solely in charge of contracting, the highest paid players in Australian Rugby would be spread very evenly but they might only cover half the positions on the field.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

He solution is central contracting: the ARU pays everyone and with certain controls tell them where they will play.
Never will happen now.

 

[Brumby Runner]

AFAIK Palu was signed for two years at the end of 2013. Given his age, I'd be highly surprised if he was offered another top up unless he has a very good 2015 and even then I'd expect it would be a single year proposition.

Given the physical nature of the sport, invariably the ARU will get very little value out of at least a couple of the 25 top up contracts due to injuries. Pocock being the most obvious example in the last couple of years. It's an unfortunate fact of life.






Props are far more valuable at test level than Super Rugby level. Hard to see any of our props getting a good deal under this method.

As I said, Cliff was only used as an example. I didn't wish to imply that he would get a two year further top up contract, though I suppose that is still a possibility. My concern was that any player getting a two year top up in 2015 will potentially draw their money in the second year while not really earning it, if they are badly injured, or lose form or another, better player in the position comes out of the woodwork. Your example of Pocock illustrates my point precisely. Wouldn't it be better to have a system that minimises the effects of a player dropping out of the Wallabies for whatever reason?

I can see your point about the provinces offering extra money to players they want rather than to others where it might be in the best interests of the Wallabies. But atm that's supposition on your part, and to take the example of props, perhaps PAE would have been retained if the Rebels had been able to offer him a contract that the ARU wasn't willing to do.

 

[wamberal]

There is no simple solution to what is a very complex, and dynamic, problem.

It is pretty obvious that judgement calls have to be made, balancing the needs of the national squad against the available and very limited resources available to reward them.

Judgement implies subjective opinions, and, as an old mate of mine says, opinions are like arseholes. We all have one.


There are several good examples around here.

 

[Quick Hands]

As I said, Cliff was only used as an example. I didn't wish to imply that he would get a two year further top up contract, though I suppose that is still a possibility. My concern was that any player getting a two year top up in 2015 will potentially draw their money in the second year while not really earning it, if they are badly injured, or lose form or another, better player in the position comes out of the woodwork. Your example of Pocock illustrates my point precisely. Wouldn't it be better to have a system that minimises the effects of a player dropping out of the Wallabies for whatever reason?

I can see your point about the provinces offering extra money to players they want rather than to others where it might be in the best interests of the Wallabies. But atm that's supposition on your part, and to take the example of props, perhaps PAE would have been retained if the Rebels had been able to offer him a contract that the ARU wasn't willing to do.

I think you're spot on. The ARU don't give the big top-ups to tight 5 players, they give them to the players who are in demand elsewhere.

And because the ARU are doing such a good job, we're supposed to trust them to do a better job that the super franchises? They're flat out picking tomorrow's winners let alone two years into the future.