Aussie Player Exodus

[Dave Beat]

It also works in contradiction with Wallaby top ups etc. If the players we're thinking about giving the option to play a season overseas are amongst our top stars anyway, they'll be on a Wallaby top up and sending them overseas will represent poor value for money, particularly if they return overdone from not having a proper off season.

The biggest area where we're losing players is those who are established Super Rugby players and somewhere on the fringe of Wallaby selection. Hard to know how that can be solved given we can't pay top ups to everyone.

Maybe but what we have aint working, sitting on our arses aint work either - it is clearly evident that something has to be implemented.
1. Could an approved Sabatical offset a top up, or may even provide a greater financial return.
2. So if an approved Sabatical saves paying a top up could the fringe players be saved.

Just putting ideas out there.

 

[Braveheart81]

If you decreased top ups dramatically, allowed experienced Wallabies sabbaticals to play overseas and used that money to pay everyone more across the board it may have an impact.

If you told our stars that they were going to get a pay cut unless they go and live overseas for a while and play more rugby seems like a hard sell though.

I think we're seeing a bit of a changing of timing right now which will hopefully even out after a few years.

Currently we've got some good players going overseas at a younger age which is different to what we've had previously. Assuming that will continue, hopefully it will be balanced by people like Kane Douglas and Hugh Pyle returning to Australia in their mid to late 20s and being better players.

 

[TOCC]

It also works in contradiction with Wallaby top ups etc. If the players we're thinking about giving the option to play a season overseas are amongst our top stars anyway, they'll be on a Wallaby top up and sending them overseas will represent poor value for money, particularly if they return overdone from not having a proper off season.

The biggest area where we're losing players is those who are established Super Rugby players and somewhere on the fringe of Wallaby selection. Hard to know how that can be solved given we can't pay top ups to everyone.

This is the way i picture it, the ARU offers a player a contract based on his value, if he then wishes to take a sabbatical from September - June he is only paid according to the months he is available for Australia pro-rata.. For someone like Genia that is potentially $1million for the season just from the Top14, with generous tax laws in France and the potential to play in the Rugby Championships with Australia, the player ends up well ahead financially.

BH currently we are only losing the 2nd tier players, but post 2015 RWC when the ARU doesn't have the Lions/RWC carrot to dangle anymore and the Top14 has a larger salary cap, there might greater pressure on retaining current wallabies.



Yes it's all hypotheticals, but I'd be happy to see a player miss a super rugby season if it means having him available for the wallabies in the long term.

 

[Braveheart81]

BH currently we are only losing the 2nd tier players, but post 2015 RWC when the ARU doesn't have the Lions/RWC carrot to dangle anymore and the Top14 has a larger salary cap, there might greater pressure on retaining current wallabies.

I don't disagree. It will be interesting to see who ups and leaves.

I guess the question at the end of 2015 will be which players are most looking to leave and how important are they to our plans for 2016 and beyond.

Certainly some players who are likely to go will be past their prime and whilst they'd still be Wallabies in 2016 if they stayed, they'll be becoming less critical and potential replacements should be on the way up.

I think Genia and AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) are probably the two most likely to leave after the 2015 RWC. Of course it's very hard to predict.

 

[Tomikin]

I don't disagree. It will be interesting to see who ups and leaves.

I guess the question at the end of 2015 will be which players are most looking to leave and how important are they to our plans for 2016 and beyond.

Certainly some players who are likely to go will be past their prime and whilst they'd still be Wallabies in 2016 if they stayed, they'll be becoming less critical and potential replacements should be on the way up.

I think Genia and AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) are probably the two most likely to leave after the 2015 RWC. Of course it's very hard to predict.

Guys like Moore probably move on after next RWC, Maybe someone like Horwill will as well, although his still a young guy.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I think the lure of the Wallaby jersey, the British and Irish Lions matches and the RWC is a little overstated to be honest.

Sure these are great to be a part of, but generally I think the benefit players get from staying here is the increased profile and networking which benefits them significantly more financially post retirement, then the overseas money does during their playing days.

By staying they maintain the profile and presence and can smoothly transition upon retirement into these other roles.

Overseas clubs are full of mercenaries on 2 year contracts and therefore seldom do much for these players upon retirement, unless they have a significant immediate benefit they can offer the club back.

Some people look at the long term, others are more concerned about the short term, or potentially there post-rugby goals rely on a large sum of capital to inject.

 

[Braveheart81]

Guys like Moore probably move on after next RWC, Maybe someone like Horwill will as well, although his still a young guy.

Stephen Moore will certainly be at the age where it is then or never, but he seems to me like the sort of guy who might just play his whole career in Australia and then move on to do something else. I could be wrong but he doesn't seem to be as driven by money (I've got very little to base that on though). Given how long he's been the first choice hooker, he'd have done pretty well out of Australian rugby from a financial perspective as well.

Horwill seems less likely unless he wants the opportunity to live overseas for a while. To my knowledge his family business means he's got a great financial platform and a career he can walk into after rugby if he wants it.

 

[BDA]

Any news on Dan Palmer? I thought I read somewhere that he had thrown in the towel due to some serious injury. Is there any chance we might see a return to aus rugby in the coming years?

 

[oztimmay]

Yes Dan had retired. Foot injury never recovered. Off to uni for him.

 

[Braveheart81]

Any news on Dan Palmer? I thought I read somewhere that he had thrown in the towel due to some serious injury. Is there any chance we might see a return to aus rugby in the coming years?

He's set to retire due to recurrent foot injuries I believe.

 

[BDA]

A lot of talk tonight regarding the eligibility rules. The general consensus was that the ARU should move to relax the rules to allow the Wallabies coach to choose some overseas based players. I agree completely.

Andrew Mehrtens made a very good point by point out that seasoned players moving to europe not only opens the door for younger players to take their spot (which creates more depth) but it also gives australia players like Giteau who improve by playing at the highest level in europe.

 

[ChargerWA]

The system clearly isn't working. The reason to not pick overseas based players was to keep them in Aus rugby with the lure of a Wallabies cap. The concerning ones lost to me are Pyle, Longbottom, Kimlin. Guys who never played for the Wallabies.

Forget Douglas, Mowen, Timani, etc. Those guys have tasted the Wallabies jersey and decided the lure of money was stronger. You're never going to keep them under the current strategy.

So how do you keep guys on the fringe of selection but haven't actually been selected yet? I feel that both Kimlin and Longbottom probably started negotiations before their form made them stand out selections for the Wallaby squad and had gone too far through the process to back out. The only real answer is dialogue with these players before it's too late, but identifying that moment before your giving false hope and needlessly preventing a players from going overseas if you don't end up picking them and before the overseas clubs pounce is critical. But ultimately I suspect players will do whatever they continue to do and their is no silver bullet fix.

I do however agree with any Wallaby who has played 50+ tests should be eligible for selection from overseas.

 

[Slim 293]

Kimlin has 2 Wallaby caps (2009)........

He also earned the nickname "noodles" from his 2 mins against the Barbarians the previous year..........

Unfortunately injury spoiled his opportunities for more caps, and when he finally got a good run of form he'd decided to go o/s.........

It's a shame because on the form he was in last year he would potentially make the 23 man squad, and Link hinted towards that...........

And he's very much missed at the Brumbies.........

 

[Bardon]

The system clearly isn't working. The reason to not pick overseas based players was to keep them in Aus rugby with the lure of a Wallabies cap. The concerning ones lost to me are Pyle, Longbottom, Kimlin. Guys who never played for the Wallabies.

Forget Douglas, Mowen, Timani, etc. Those guys have tasted the Wallabies jersey and decided the lure of money was stronger. You're never going to keep them under the current strategy.

So how do you keep guys on the fringe of selection but haven't actually been selected yet? I feel that both Kimlin and Longbottom probably started negotiations before their form made them stand out selections for the Wallaby squad and had gone too far through the process to back out. The only real answer is dialogue with these players before it's too late, but identifying that moment before your giving false hope and needlessly preventing a players from going overseas if you don't end up picking them and before the overseas clubs pounce is critical. But ultimately I suspect players will do whatever they continue to do and their is no silver bullet fix.

I do however agree with any Wallaby who has played 50+ tests should be eligible for selection from overseas.

The problem that Super Rugby teams will increasingly face is that European (especially English and French) teams will target players at a younger age so that they can sign them for less and get the benefit of their peak years. The more money that comes into the game the more often this will happen.

If it goes the same way as football we can expect Super Rugby players to spend the beginning of their career at Super Rugby franchises, then the middle portion at European clubs before returning to Super Rugby for the twilight of their career.

It will take a while before this becomes the dominant route for Super Rugby players into Europe and whatever happens I'd still expect there to be players who move after RWC year no matter where they are in their careers.

The requirement to play Super Rugby for Aus selection is probably the only thing currently holding back a mass exodus that would see the bulk of a generation lost from Super Rugby.

Some of the French clubs seem to have bottomless pockets. Not all the English clubs are in the same position, but their new TV deal will mean the likes of Sarries, Leicester etc. will have the money to splash about too.

Although I live in Europe and watch a lot of European Rugby, I also watch a lot of Super Rugby, ITM, CC etc. and I'd like the standards to be maintained in both hemispheres. Europe becoming too dominant is in no ones interests other than the backers of the big English and French clubs.

 

[Dave Beat]

The system clearly isn't working. The reason to not pick overseas based players was to keep them in Aus rugby with the lure of a Wallabies cap. The concerning ones lost to me are Pyle, Longbottom, Kimlin. Guys who never played for the Wallabies.

Forget Douglas, Mowen, Timani, etc. Those guys have tasted the Wallabies jersey and decided the lure of money was stronger. You're never going to keep them under the current strategy.

So how do you keep guys on the fringe of selection but haven't actually been selected yet? I feel that both Kimlin and Longbottom probably started negotiations before their form made them stand out selections for the Wallaby squad and had gone too far through the process to back out. The only real answer is dialogue with these players before it's too late, but identifying that moment before your giving false hope and needlessly preventing a players from going overseas if you don't end up picking them and before the overseas clubs pounce is critical. But ultimately I suspect players will do whatever they continue to do and their is no silver bullet fix.

I do however agree with any Wallaby who has played 50+ tests should be eligible for selection from overseas.

Houston, yes we have a problem and are looking to fix. I'd be interested to know how much of the decision is based on money, or is some of it the experience.
A different angle.
Has anybody spent money for a holiday 10+ years ago, are you missing that money now, but you still have the memories hey.

 

[suckerforred]

I get the feeling, or maybe it is just a hope, the the fringe players leaving might slow down once it is proved that the Wallabies squad is selected on actual from rather than some preconceived notion of what a player is capable of. This is only just happening, and as others have pointed out, the guys who are leaving probably started the negotiations in the Super Rugby off season and therefore might be kicking themselves now.

I think that what will be needed is a multi-pronged approach.

1. Selection on form - this will mean that those pushing for selection, 3rd or 4th in line, have a reason to stay & push themselves to become better players & unseat the 'incumbants'.

2. Pay structure needs to be changed - I firmly believe that the Top-up system needs to go. Players should be paid based on if they are selected or not and if they play. Maybe the amount spent by the ARU on 'top-ups' could be fed back into the Super Rugby clubs to increase the salary cap.

3. To go along with the above, the contracting system needs to be sorted out. I honestly do not understand why the ARU does/should have any influence over what agreement the Super Rugby clubs come to with their players. How the hell do we end up with the circumstances where a player has a contract with a club for multiple years but the ARU has only ratified 1 year? In case you don't understand this means that even if a player wanted to stay at a club they can't because the ARU has to sign off on all contracts. Yes salary cap & forgien player rules etc need to be monitored, but I would have thought that if a player wants to stay at a certain club for 2, 3, 4, hell 10 years that would be a good thing for Australian rugby.

4. Exemptions to selection rules - I am a little loathe to open this can of worms, but.... if it must be opened..... Rules need to be set down in the start and followed. No changing them because of individual circumstances or pressure from which ever quarter thinks that they need to be changed in the middle of a season. I would start by saying that if you have 50 Wallaby caps then this may make you eligible, but only if there are no other realistic options. Yes, I think that Gits probably would have been selected in the squad if he was elligible, but there are so many ifs, buts & maybes in comparing players who are playing in different competitions that nothing is certain. Remember one of the things about have the players all playing in Aust is that they play against each other and in the same set of competition circumstances so can be easily compared.

I would also like to point out that there are many reasons for players to choose to play overseas. Yes the lure of the money is a factor. Let's face it the number of available professional contracts in Australia is very small, even compared to our near neighbours accross the ditch, so we would be fools to think that we would be able to keep all players in Australia. I am however concerned that those who are knocking on the door of selection are up sticks & leaving. I wonder if the ARU does exit interviews with these guys?

 

[Braveheart81]

I think the squad is currently selected as much on form as it ever will be.

The days of selecting the Wallabies purely on form is long gone. When you're playing around 15 tests a year, the Wallabies are a team in their own right and selections will be a mix of form, experience and building on the previous team.

I don't think making overseas players eligible will lead to a mass exodus.

My main concern would be how to compare foreign players to local players. Clearly this issue is coming to a head again because of players leaving and particularly Matt Giteau's form for Toulon.

The problem is how do you compare overseas performances to local ones? It's much easier in Super Rugby where you can see players playing against each other and against the same opponents.

How do you tell exactly how well Giteau is playing? Would he be better at 12 than To'omua etc.?

Then you've got the Japanese situation. I don't think anyone was quite sure how well George Smith was going to go in Super Rugby before he returned from Japan last year. If he'd only played in Japan how do you effectively judge form?

I think an overseas selection policy would work best if it was clear that unless it is obvious, local players get selected. It would be terrible for morale and Super Rugby if players started feeling like overseas players were getting the inside running on some selection decisions.

 

[Train Without a Station]

It's ludicrous to say the system is broken. It achieves the best of what it can with the limited resources available.

What overseas based player would be a definite pick based on their most recent Super Rugby form? James O'Conner and he's overseas because he's contract was terminated.

Digby Ioane was subpar in 2013. Would he take a spot over Tomane and Cummins based on the form shown?

Matt Giteau was widely and rightly lambasted for his lateral attack and seeming unwillingness to play 12 any more. Would you have him at 12 over To'omua today? Would you even benefit with a 10. To'omua & 12. Giteau combo? It brings the same weaknesses in the 12 channel of direct attack and strong defence and is less evident with To'omua playing 10.

Drew Mitchell. Same as Ioane.

Peter Kimlin was indeed great in 2013. Would you say he is definitely better than Fardy and Jones, who are both that similar Lock/6? Would you rather we kept Noodles and lost Fardy?

Hugh Pyle is leaving. There's a reason he hasn't been capped.

Kieran Longbottom is leaving, but he's an uncapped player who has not really entered discussions until 2014.

Are we really missing Dean Mumm, Mark Chisholm, Julian Salvi and Blair Conner?

Nobody we have lost is first choice. Some not even second choice. Most would only be injury replacements and that's where the issue lies. You cannot throw more money at these players. You have limited funds and quite simply the gap between what they get here and what they can get overseas is too high. The only way to keep them would be at the expense of better players.

The system only hurts the Wallabies in the case of multiple injuries. But then, that is part of the system to protect Super Rugby. Changes would only decimate Super Rugby, which would ultimately be to the detriment of the Wallabies.

Any view to change to allow overseas based players being selected is short sighted. Strengthening Super Rugby will strengthen rugby in Australia, develop more players and therefore benefit Australia long term.

I'd maybe be personally open to a 100+ cap exemption. Only for legends. When you considering that players like Dean Mumm and Rob Simmons have 20+ caps, 50 is far too few.

 

[BDA]

Right now we have this fear driven idea that changing the eligibility rules will cause a mass exodus. This is incorrect on two fronts. Firstly, there is already plenty of test quality talent heading overseas (just look at title of this threat). Secondly, most of our players will remain in Australia regardless of the money being offered. Those that are all about the $$ will go regardless of the wallabies carrot.

The current system provides no incentive for test players to reach a certain number of caps before going overseas.

We need a system that encourages our best young players to play in Australia for 3 or 4 seasons, and then gives them the ability to go offshore if they wish. Most will stay, but those that go simply open up positions for the next wave of young players. It's a system that creates depth but also strengthens our national team.

The fact is even if you relaxed the rules, the wallabies coach is unlikely to pick many overseas based players for logistical and continuity reasons. However it would give the wallabies coach the benefit of choosing players abroad to plug wholes in certain positions.

I'd employ the following rules:-

- Must play a minimum 40 games for the wallabies before being eligible (that exact number is up for debate but should be something achievable within about 3 season).
- There can only be 2 overseas based players chosen in any match day 23 (this rule would prevent large numbers of current wallabies from going abroad and playing for the wobs. It confirms to players that being selected from overseas is unlikely and only for a rare few)
- Overseas based players are not eligible to play in the June test series.
(this rule again encourages the wallabies coach to start every season with 23 local talents in the team. It also makes it more difficult for overseas players to break into the side, as combinations and personnel are decided on in June).

 

[ChargerWA]

I havent seen alot of Drew Mitchell lately, but what i have seen tells me he would walk back into the Wallaby 15 as it currently stands. We are missing one bona fide winger in good form until Speight becomes eligible.