• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Australian Rugby / RA

T

Train Without a Station

Guest
Because it's not helping them commit. I'm doubtful the prospect of a few pine apples in his pocket on a Saturday down at Coogee oval is what got him to the Waratahs.

The problem is if club's are competing to attract players who will be playing Shute Shield anyway as directed by the Waratahs.

Reece Robinson does not elect to play Shute Shield. He is directed to when not required by the Waratahs.

He is not employed on match payments only. He has a full time contract. This may include performance bonuses.

But again, this comes back to club's which are running at losses, potentially competing for signatures of players who have no choice whether or not they play Shute Shield.
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
Doesn't really change the point. The question was, is he being paid to play Shute Shield. Gagger's comment is what does that matter?

TOCC and I are saying these clubs are crying poor, they should not be competing for players financially. Especially Waratahs players.

You can only hope his history means he chose to go there without any financial incentive.
 
T

TOCC

Guest
Gagger said:
You're begrudging a pro rugby player being paid (an alleged) $200 for his week's effort for a club?

All pro contracts are individually negotiated, so for all you know he essentially doesn't get paid that weekend by the Super team as he misses his playing bonus. I'm guessing Reece isn't exactly pulling down big numbers just yet.

I really don't get the hostility behind either paying or helping players to enable them to commit to rugby.
Click to expand...

Well firstly, $200/week is around $4000 a season, for an amateur organisation that is a massive liability.

Secondly, this isn't a case of 'enabling them to commit to rugby', players like Reece are already fully paid professionally players contracted to play rugby in the state of NSW, he is contractually obligated to play in the Shute Shield regardless of any additional player payments. He has a contract negotiated in line with the RUPA CBA so he is getting paid a salary regardless of playing or not.

And finally this 'hostility' is a two way street, this discussion has only surfaced due to people in the clubland like Papworth whinging and criticising the ARU over finances, yet there are unregulated player payments going on which are compromising the financial integrity of clubs.

Robinson is just an example, but I've also seen and heard player payments in Sydney and Brisbane where's certain players have been recruited from other clubs for sizeable fees(not match payments) despite their Super Rugby commitments meaning they will only play a handful of games...

Rugby union has limited resources, and having amateur clubs pay professional players to do what they are already paid to do is a ridiculous concept and something which needs to be eradicated from the game.
 
I like to watch

I like to watch

David Codey (61)
On what basis are people claiming Robinson is being paid by Wicks this week?
$4k per year per player?
$60k + more for bench players..
Why don't Wicks Annual Reports reflect these payments?

Unnamed Super players being recruited by unnamed clubs,for unspecified amounts?
I struggle to feel the outrage.
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Randwick dropped their "Player Rewards" from $32k in 2013 to $8k in 2014.

"Scholarships" went up from $0 in 2013 to $35k in 2014.

"Player Expenses" went up from $5k in 2013 to $11k in 2014.

I think the issue for most people is whether an increase in funding from the NSWRU or ARU to the Shute Shield clubs would actually lead to more money being spent on grassroots development and the improvement of facilities and coaching or would it just increase the amounts paid to recruit and retain players?
 
WorkingClassRugger

WorkingClassRugger

David Codey (61)
Braveheart81 said:
Randwick dropped their "Player Rewards" from $32k in 2013 to $8k in 2014.

"Scholarships" went up from $0 in 2013 to $35k in 2014.

"Player Expenses" went up from $5k in 2013 to $11k in 2014.

I think the issue for most people is whether an increase in funding from the NSWRU or ARU to the Shute Shield clubs would actually lead to more money being spent on grassroots development and the improvement of facilities and coaching or would it just increase the amounts paid to recruit and retain players?
Click to expand...


You've pretty much summed up my position. I think people need to realise is that $50m a year is not a lot of money when competing in our marketplace. While it's a significnat boost it's not enough to assume the good times are back. They're not. Both the ARU and we as the Rugby community need to recognise that it is in our best interests to grow the game with an eye on hopefully doubling that figure again come the next round of negotiations.

That means we need to focus our resources on getting more people playing and watching our game. In a perfect world were money was unlimited I would gladly give the clubs $100k a season. Probably even more. The deeper our professional pol the better. But that reality doesn't exist.

If we achieve significant growth in participation and viewership, and that results in another similar jump in rights money then perhaps providing funds to clubs becomes an optio once again. But until then, the clubs need to seriously look at the business plans. Restructure their recruitment packages etc.
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
Exactly. Grow the real base on the income will grow. Then money can be spent on areas that don't provide the bulk of player engagement and player development.
 
T

TOCC

Guest
Braveheart81 said:
Randwick dropped their "Player Rewards" from $32k in 2013 to $8k in 2014.

"Scholarships" went up from $0 in 2013 to $35k in 2014.

"Player Expenses" went up from $5k in 2013 to $11k in 2014.

I think the issue for most people is whether an increase in funding from the NSWRU or ARU to the Shute Shield clubs would actually lead to more money being spent on grassroots development and the improvement of facilities and coaching or would it just increase the amounts paid to recruit and retain players?
Click to expand...

That's precisely my issue..

If the ARU is to increase funding to Shute Shield clubs or QLD Premier Grade I want it to be under the proviso that player payments aren't either directly or indirectly inflated as a result. Especially if those funds are directed towards professional rugby players who are already been paid to play rugby in their respective state.

Grass Roots funding shouldn't be topping up the bank balance of super rugby contracted players, that's my biggest issue with all this.

NRL and AFL don't allow it, players who drop back to state leagues aren't paid to play for those clubs, so why do we allow it to happen in rugby union when our resources are even more scarce then the other codes.
 
Dave Beat

Dave Beat

Paul McLean (56)
Train Without a Station said:
TOCC and I are saying these clubs are crying poor, they should not be competing for players financially. Especially Waratahs players.

You can only hope his history means he chose to go there without any financial incentive.
Click to expand...

This is not meant as you will probably read it, competing improves systems, processes, structures.
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
Dave Beat said:
This is not meant as you will probably read it, competing improves systems, processes, structures.
Click to expand...


Yes. Competing to provide the best environment that attracts players. Competing to build the reputation like Uni's, that if players come to the club they will progress to the professional level.

Not competing in match payments.
 
Dave Beat

Dave Beat

Paul McLean (56)
Train Without a Station said:
Yes. Competing to provide the best environment that attracts players. Competing to build the reputation like Uni's, that if players come to the club they will progress to the professional level.

Not competing in match payments.
Click to expand...

Having heard first hand it is very interesting, but i cant put it word for word so will leave it at that.
 
wamberal

wamberal

Phil Kearns (64)
TOCC said:
Just another level of added bureaucracy


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Would it be better in the long run to let the market sort it out?


I am not trolling, I never do, I think it is a genuine question. Try to steer developments, or just let the strong survive and the weak go?
 
The_Brown_Hornet

The_Brown_Hornet

John Eales (66)
Far be it from me to interrupt the petty squabbling between the SS clubs and the ARU, but has anyone else seen this?

http://intheloose.com/2016/03/04/wallabies-coach-michael-cheika-has-threatened-to-resign/

Michael Cheika’s contract renegotiations with the Australian Rugby Union have stalled, with the successful Wallabies coach understood to have threatened to resign if it is not resolved by the end of next week.
High-ranking Australian rugby sources have told ESPN that Cheika is unimpressed that discussions over finalising a new deal, which is supposed to see him lead the Wallabies until the 2019 Rugby World Cup in Japan, have in recent weeks degenerated into a frustrating “to and fro” process.
Click to expand...

A beat up or is there something to it? Do any of our well connected Gaggerlanders have any mail?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top