• 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.

How many contracted players?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hawko

Tony Shaw (54)
There has been some comment on the Reds threads after they lost three players in one week that there are not enough contracted players for next year. Any Tah or Brumbies fan would have found this to be a statement of the bleeding obvious. For example, the Tahs fourth hooker has just done his ACL in Shute. Currently we have two semi-fit and one coming back soon, with the fourth gone for the season (or have I missed one?).

Yet the ARU, on an austerity drive with JO'N at the wheel, has determined that next year all Aussie squads will have 30 contracted players and 5 in the training squad.

The current Tah squad is 38, without Vickerman who is still to come back. So we now have the ludicrous situation where we have to take nine of those players off contract, put 5 in the training squad and sack 4. There are 5 players in the training squad, including Bennetts, Peterson, the younger Timani and Woodhouse for whom there seems to be no space. I know a number of players are heading overseas but according to the ARU, none of them can be replaced! I think only Holmes and Jowitt (he's injured) have not at least made the bench this year. Its not like we've got 7 or 8 players parked in the squad that haven't had to be called up.

Every Super franchise need to have at least the following:
5 props, 3 hookers, 5 locks, 2 fetchers, 5 other backrowers, 3 halfbacks, 5 inside backs, 3 outside centres and 7 winger/fullbacks.​

They then need to have at least five, probably eight youngsters who could do ten minutes off the bench if injury strikes a particularly position and who are likely to make the major squad in the next two years.

The desire for smaller squads is based on the need to restrict losses over the next two years as the WC depletes the Wallaby coffers and with problems at the Brumbies and Tahs with revenue. But you can't operate on a squad of 30. Even the Reds, who have had a miracle injury run now coming to an end, have had to pull extras from the U20's. So if the squad's need to be bigger then the money has to be spread out more evenly. No more $750K Wallaby contracts and if Quade goes to league so be it. Some Wallabies will go to France, but that money will dry up in the end. Franchises will have to restrict salary averages below $80K and then use third party deals to give good players special incentives. Given that NZ Super players get substantially less than Australians, spreading the money around certainly won't cause an exit across the ditch.

Reality has to catch up with the team managers and the ARU sometime.
 

Gnostic

Mark Ella (57)
No more $750K contracts Hawko? You know I have been a proponent for the limitting of the payments a bit more for a long time. Rugby is a team game and needs a team not one or two stars paid huge sums and a few also rans. A very socialist view I suppose, but the pigs allow the likes of quade to shine, without their solid work will he win games? Ok maybe one or two but my point is valid.

I don't think League is the huge danger, rather I think the Euro is.

I think very soon we will see the first exemption from the requirment to play Super Rugby to earn elligibility for the Wallabies and from there it is a slippery slope. I just don't know that a salary cap or restriction of any kind can work when the rest of the market is free. It works for the US in the NFL because there is no competitor, in the League because really there is no competitor (unless Rugby wants a winger and the English Super League is just a retirement home for NRL players).

I just can't see the status quo changing. The issue as I see it is the lack of opportunity and the loss of the next level of player overseas which has really reduced our squad depth. How many players are playing in Top Euro comps that could form part of a Super Squad?
 

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Yep.

Extending the season + reducing playing rosters = disaster

The Brumbies have been bleeding money because they've had to promote several players from the academy

The Tahs would be in a similar situation, and the Reds are going to find the same thing now.

Ita Vaea is not in the Brumbies' senior squad and has nearly played every game this year.
 

RugbyReg

Rocky Elsom (76)
Staff member
The Brumbies have been bleeding money because they've had to promote several players from the academy

The Tahs would be in a similar situation, and the Reds are going to find the same thing now.

this has been the case at the Reds for a number of years (can't recall if it was last year though) but was for many years before that.

Ita Vaea is not in the Brumbies' senior squad and has nearly played every game this year.

As for Beau Robinson at the Reds, as soon as he's played 4 games, he's in the senior squad with a full time contract.
 

Gnostic

Mark Ella (57)
The Brumbies made that bed for themselves with regard to Vaea. They retained Hoiles who has been injured for the better part of two years, kept two rookie 7's, contracted another 7/8 in Salvi and then kept another crock with long term injury issues in Elsom. Anybody with half a brain and bit of forward palnning would have said shit we can't afford to keep Hoiles on the books, and would have let one of Hooper or Fainga'a go or even Salvi. They were the only side in Oz to go into the Super season with half their forward pack on the injury list.

Kimlin
Elsom
Hoiles
Jerry Y
 

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
Hoiles did play the first game of the season and was expected to be fit.

Surprisingly, Kimlin has yet to crock himself this year since returning to the field.
 

farva

Vay Wilson (31)
I dont like the idea of limiting players at all.
If there is a salary cap, then the teams can have a small squad and higher wages (hence entice better players) or a larger squad and smaller wages hence more injury cover but less stars.

Interestingly, we are up against squads from SA of around 60 to 70 for some provinces.

Having said that, arent the kiwis limited to 28?
 

disco

Chilla Wilson (44)
No the kiwis have squads of 30 also except they can only contract 25 & pick up the other 5 through the draft me thinks.
 

Hawko

Tony Shaw (54)
No the kiwis have squads of 30 also except they can only contract 25 & pick up the other 5 through the draft me thinks.

Have the Saders only used 30 players this season? With their injury toll I would have thought they would be past that by now.
 

Ash

Michael Lynagh (62)
The Kiwi squads also have wider training groups. They have 25 reserved players, rest go into the draft. The other 5 spots (to 30 spots) are filled from what they don't lose in the draft or what they pick up in the draft. Rest of their players go into their wider training squad.
 

Hawko

Tony Shaw (54)
The Kiwi squads also have wider training groups. They have 25 reserved players, rest go into the draft. The other 5 spots (to 30 spots) are filled from what they don't lose in the draft or what they pick up in the draft. Rest of their players go into their wider training squad.

If the ARU persist with their 30 contracts nonsense then the Australian franchises are going to have to go the same wider training squad route (not just full of juniors) and get some third party benefactor to fund it. Only solution I can see.
 

RugbyReg

Rocky Elsom (76)
Staff member
Link's latest article here:

A little snippet:

Traditionally the academies provide two types of players - some ready to play Super Rugby and others straight from school, who do not always possess the requirements for the elite level straight away.

The Super teams have buffered this situation by directly engaging club players around the periphery who are able to step into any breach.

This will change next year when the academies will no longer be controlled by their provinces as this will revert to the ARU through a centralised system.

It remains to be seen how this will work in terms of a development match program, although these Academy squads will also service the burgeoning Sevens program and of course the Under-20s program.

So where does this leave the Super clubs with their longer match program and smaller squad sizes? The positive news is that squad sizes should be increasing to about 35, which will be more in line with player usage rates.
 

light

Peter Fenwicke (45)
So basically, other franchises are able to raid academies and provinces can't contract the players or do anything to stop it? wow the Reds youth teams are in a bit of trouble
 

Jets

Paul McLean (56)
Staff member
What happens when the Force use a player from the ARU academy in Brisbane to cover for someone who is injured for 2 games, he goes back to the ARU Academy and then the Rebels need someone so call on him to help them out. Is this something that will happen or will they players be aligned with a team but just do their S & C and skills work in the Academy structure?
 

darkhorse

Darby Loudon (17)
The limit on contracting players won't affect a squad whose is having injury problems. The exact same thing will happen as before. When a player is needed to fill the 'breach' they will be taken from the academies and if they play 4 games they're contract will be upgraded regardless of the Limit. The problem will be next year when they're on a full-contract and the club needs to axe some people.
 

Slim 293

Stirling Mortlock (74)
There needs to be more clarification on how it's going to work...

Personally, I like to see as many Canberrans as possible brought in through the Brumbies' academy and get a chance to represent their local team...

I get the feeling this means that players would have less say on where they end up?
 
R

Red Rooster

Guest
IRB law says that you can only play for one team in a competition year. Once an academy player playes for a province he cannot play for another in the same competition year
 

Torn Hammy

Johnnie Wallace (23)
From their financial report last year the Waratahs had revenue of about $18 million.

If we use Cricket Australia's formula of about 25% of revenue to players then we get a figure of $4.5 million to be shared amongst the players. This gives an average wage of approx. $129,000 for 35 contracted players. The Waratah's pay a license fee of $1 million to NSWRU, but don't develop the game at grassroots level.

I just hope that the corporate types on the rugby gravy train don't bleed it dry and thus short change the players. As Super rugby gets physically and mentally more demanding, they need to be paid more not less. The corporate types need to accommodate the players, not the other way around.

I apologise for the rubbery nature of the figures used, but it is nearly that time of the year and I can't help myself.
 

Jets

Paul McLean (56)
Staff member
IRB law says that you can only play for one team in a competition year. Once an academy player playes for a province he cannot play for another in the same competition year

It doesn't stop movement at club level in Brisbane. Guess the ARU will enforce it a bit better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top