Australian Rugby / RA

[barbarian]

I think a capped top-up system could work, with one key safeguard.

You would need an exemption for talent that was grown and developed at the same team. Because if it was a blanket cap, the following situation would play out every few years:

A team has a young-ish squad and a good coach. They have success, and build really nicely over a season or two. In the second year, many of the players are rewarded with a Wallaby call-up. The next year, the team is primed to challenge for the Super Rugby title. But sadly due to their success last year they have hit their top-up cap, and have to either cut salaries or players. Just when they were ready to make the next step, they lose a few key players to other teams/OS and their run is stalled.

I think if you've spent enough time in the development systems of one particular side, you should be exempt. Think Quade at the Reds, Foley at the Tahs, McMahon at the Rebels, TK at the Brumbies.

And yes this may result in one side having more Wallabies than the others. But shouldn't they be rewarded for their great work in developing that talent?

But for other players, I think a cap could definitely work. This would cover players returning from O/S, or jumping to their 2nd or 3rd Super team.
.

 

[Braveheart81]

So your point boils down to "that because people want to play for the Tahs the Tahs should have a larger proportion of total player salaries with the amount over and above other states paid by the governing body"? Yes or no?

No, my point has nothing to do with that.

My point has everything to do with the premise that the ARU isn't going to risk their ability to retain their key Wallabies which is their key revenue driver under the guise of levelling the playing field for the Super Rugby teams.

It looks like the spread will be far more even in 2018 with the likely movement of several Wallabies from the Force to the Rebels.

 

[Derpus]

No, my point has nothing to do with that.

My point has everything to do with the premise that the ARU isn't going to risk their ability to retain their key Wallabies which is their key revenue driver under the guise of levelling the playing field for the Super Rugby teams.

It looks like the spread will be far more even in 2018 with the likely movement of several Wallabies from the Force to the Rebels.

That is the root cause of the problem, though. Trickle down economics is so old hat.

 

[Braveheart81]

That is the root cause of the problem, though. Trickle down economics is so old hat.

It's not trickle down economics. A surplus of funds at the higher levels of the game is the only reason there is any money to be spent on the grassroots.

International rugby is the revenue driver for every major union.

 

[Derpus]

It's not trickle down economics. A surplus of funds at the higher levels of the game is the only reason there is any money to be spent on the grassroots.

International rugby is the revenue driver for every major union.

Yeah and the game is broken world-wide. Read the Guardian UK. British clubs are struggling to break even under the richest union in the world.

But i won't go into any more depth. Need an essay and it's off topic.

Edit: Economic policy aimed at favoring the top-end (Wallabies) on the presumption that surplus will be passed down effectively is literally the definition of trickle down economics.

 

[USARugger]

Yeah and until grassroots starts generating serious revenue it will always be that way. I'm not sure what your point is. Test rugby is the only significant revenue generator aside from Tier 1 domestic.

Is money being doled our properly? Nah, probably not. Will money always need to be doled out from the national body to lower level clubs because the national team brings in the majority of revenue related to the sport? Always

Are you referencing trickle-down because you think the clubs are "over taxed" by the ARU? You know, considering the entire focus of trickle-down is on a model of taxation and regulatory laxness. I don't really think club dues are what's killing the game.

 

[Braveheart81]

Yeah and the game is broken world-wide. Read the Guardian UK. British clubs are struggling to break even under the richest union in the world.

But i won't go into any more depth. Need an essay and it's off topic.

Edit: Economic policy aimed at favoring the top-end (Wallabies) on the presumption that surplus will be passed down effectively is literally the definition of trickle down economics.

Revenue has continued to go up though. Player payments have continued to go up. Is the reality that teams are struggling to break even because as they have more money at their disposal they pay more of it to attract the best players?

It isn't the same as trickle down economics. The reality is that the bulk of the income is made by test team because broadcasters pay the most to show those games and the most people attend at the highest ticket prices out of any games on offer. This is where the financial surplus can be generated.

The more successful the test team is, the more money the ARU and the state unions get to spend on the grassroots.

Please explain to me how a different revenue model will work.

 

[Derpus]

Revenue has continued to go up though. Player payments have continued to go up. Is the reality that teams are struggling to break even because as they have more money at their disposal they pay more of it to attract the best players?

It isn't the same as trickle down economics. The reality is that the bulk of the income is made by test team because broadcasters pay the most to show those games and the most people attend at the highest ticket prices out of any games on offer. This is where the financial surplus can be generated.

The more successful the test team is, the more money the ARU and the state unions get to spend on the grassroots.

Please explain to me how a different revenue model will work.

I can't. Not without restructuring the game to be primarily club based. I don't think any system based on the vagaries of international success can ever be sustainable.

 

[dru]

Well thought through B.

You would need an exemption for talent that was grown and developed at the same team.

Sort of what happened to the Reds in the years following 2011. I had understood that Higgenbotham was offered a top up - on the basis that he relocated to Melbourne. Good enough for Brisbane, good enough for Sydney. Not sure what happened with Digby but the Reds certainly failed to afford him.

Pocock was a Brisbane kid wonder who went to Perth to get his pro start.

I think if you've spent enough time in the development systems of one particular side, you should be exempt. Think Quade at the Reds, Foley at the Tahs, McMahon at the Rebels, TK at the Brumbies.

Sure for players who've been at pro level for a while. But the talent coming through was in the first place developed by the clubs, schools and possibly premier clubs. Why should the Franchise be rewarded for this? The big franchises with the well established development paths will have the first call on most of this talent anyway.

Something that does tip the top up scales a bit - Hunt, Folau, Sailer, Tuqiri etc. You won't get these guys without something substantive up front. We could ignore them, but f we want them the,m it will skew the top up figures for any club that is successful in luring them.

 

[Braveheart81]

Well thought through B.

Sort of what happened to the Reds in the years following 2011. I had understood that Higgenbotham was offered a top up - on the basis that he relocated to Melbourne. Good enough for Brisbane, good enough for Sydney. Not sure what happened with Digby but the Reds certainly failed to afford him.

I don't think the ARU money was only on the proviso that he relocated. The Reds issue after 2011 was that they suddenly had a whole bunch of players off contract whose earning potential was massively different to when they were signed to their previous contract. They couldn't afford to pay all of them.

 

[barbarian]

Sure for players who've been at pro level for a while. But the talent coming through was in the first place developed by the clubs, schools and possibly premier clubs. Why should the Franchise be rewarded for this? The big franchises with the well established development paths will have the first call on most of this talent anyway.
.

It's a fair point I suppose. The franchise does play a role though. And now the Force are gone you could define the 'big franchises' as 75% of our teams. In reality, now the Force are gone I expect we'll see a far more even spread of top-up money in 2018. Though that doesn't mean the issue won't rear its head again in future. .

 

[Killer]

Crediting the Top is BS, the players and the supporters come from the grassroots, the Broadcasters pay the dollars because of the need for content for the supporters sitting at home.
No roots then no plant.

 

[Derpus]

Yeah and until grassroots starts generating serious revenue it will always be that way. I'm not sure what your point is. Test rugby is the only significant revenue generator aside from Tier 1 domestic.

Is money being doled our properly? Nah, probably not. Will money always need to be doled out from the national body to lower level clubs because the national team brings in the majority of revenue related to the sport? Always

Are you referencing trickle-down because you think the clubs are "over taxed" by the ARU? You know, considering the entire focus of trickle-down is on a model of taxation and regulatory laxness. I don't really think club dues are what's killing the game.

Taxation was just the state's method of controlling the distribution of resources. I'll grant it's not a perfect analogy but i think it's still apt. Any system that is dependent on the production and distribution of the majority of the resources at the top is flawed.

Particularly when income is determined by how a team plays in a game.

We can skirt the issue by arguing about how the resources ought to be distributed but the real problem is that the focus on producing at the top needs to be shifted. That's my point.

Edit: No other sport requires this use of the top-down model save maybe Cricket and it's having problems distributing reduced TV money.

 

[Braveheart81]

So let's take Will Genia for example. He was reportedly getting $400k from the ARU per season and a Super Rugby team needed to find approximately $400k within their own salary cap to sign him. That is a level playing field in terms of being able to attract him money wise. Whoever does sign him though then ends up an additional $400k being paid to their players.

For the former Western Force players, Coleman, DHP and TPN will now be available for the other teams to try and sign. All three of those will be receiving a fair chunk of their income from the ARU.

If they all ended up at the Rebels they would only be paying the same sort of money as another franchise had they signed them but the total payments made to their players will be substantially higher.

It's not a simple issue to resolve but it's also not easily quantifiable to determine how much of an impact it has on a team's ability to recruit players.

 

[Braveheart81]

Taxation was just the state's method of controlling the distribution of resources. I'll grant it's not a perfect analogy but i think it's still apt. Any system that is dependent on the production and distribution of the majority of the resources at the top is flawed.

Particularly when income is determined by how a team plays in a game.

We can skirt the issue by arguing about how the resources ought to be distributed but the real problem is that the focus on producing at the top needs to be shifted. That's my point.

Edit: No other sport requires this use of the top-down model save maybe Cricket and it's having problems distributing reduced TV money.

No other sport (except cricket) is really based around the international game like rugby union is and always has been.

How do you make more people take an interest in and pay more money to watch lower level competition?

 

[Derpus]

No other sport (except cricket) is really based around the international game like rugby union is and always has been.

How do you make more people take an interest in and pay more money to watch lower level competition?

Fuck knows. Europe seems to know.

Edit: Cricket seems to be making the shift with the 20/20 stuff (big bash, IPL)

 

[Killer]

it's simply about junior players, esp now that there is no FTA. Juniors bring their parents back and new supporters who never played. Some of these supporters are the big sponsors of club and state down the track. They don't have to pay to watch lower comp, they just need to watch and buy fox and become a member of the province teams with their kids.
But it all starts with juniors and their parents.
edit: I'm doing 3 things at once here if I'm missing the point.

 

[Tomikin]

We should have given WA Vic 10% salary cap increase for living away expensive till they were on a more even footing. Or players a, 10 percent ARU contract bounce for going there. Now that should go to the Brumbies because they have to move to Canberra..

Sent from my HTC 2PS6200 using Tapatalk

 

[Jagman]

Don't forget that marquee internationals also only take up a certain percentage of the cap (1 30th I think about 170,000) no matter what they actually get paid above that. Mafi would be on more than that surely.

Sent from my FP2 using Tapatalk

 

[Micheal]

http://www.aru.com.au/ARUadmin/Jobs.aspx

Anyone gonna apply?