Reds 2015

[Wilson]

And yet the ARU aren't going to put any money up for Hunt like they have for Folau. Again NSW get the better treatment.

We have a salary cap then this outside payment system that isn't included in that. Anyone think this creates and unfair playing field and could be seen as a restriction of trade?

Given where we are in a world cup cycle I understand the ARU not wanting to front the cash on a shorter turn around with the wallabies in better condition then they were. I think it was also the previous administration that signed Folau.

There is however a rumour that the ARU were willing to pay for him to go to the Rebels but not the Reds. If true that's bullshit but again just a rumour.

 

[Scotty]

Given where we are in a world cup cycle I understand the ARU not wanting to front the cash on a shorter turn around with the wallabies in better condition then they were. I think it was also the previous administration that signed Folau.

There is however a rumour that the ARU were willing to pay for him to go to the Rebels but not the Reds. If true that's bullshit but again just a rumour.

The point is that the system isn't fair.

Either:

1. Top up money should be evenly distributed through all teams, or

2. At the very minimum there should be no salary cap restriction.

If much prefer number 1 of course.

 

[Train Without a Station]

And yet the ARU aren't going to put any money up for Hunt like they have for Folau. Again NSW get the better treatment.

We have a salary cap then this outside payment system that isn't included in that. Anyone think this creates and unfair playing field and could be seen as a restriction of trade?

Scotty don't oversimplify a complex situation.

Limited contracts. Folau being here is basically why the ARU don't have a spot for Hunt.

I also think you don't know what a restriction of trade is the way you are describing it.

 

[Train Without a Station]

The point is that the system isn't fair.

Either:

1. Top up money should be evenly distributed through all teams, or

2. At the very minimum there should be no salary cap restriction.

If much prefer number 1 of course.

The system doesn't have to be fair.

The ARU tops up players on merit. Only in marketing cases do they ever even discuss the location of a recruit. But more importantly actual recruits are now rare.

Your proposed system could see 5 scrum halfs receiving top up money and zero tight head props. That doesn't work in the national teams interest. The central contracts are there to add extra incentive to keep players who are in the national teams interest.

In all fairness that may not include Hunt in 2014 because of Kurtley Beale, Israel Folau and Matt To'omua. That's a shame, but that's contracting. You end up with the best available at the time you have an opening, not the best that will be available.

 

[TOCC]

I think the way the ARU currently has it is about as close to perfect as you will be able to make it.. The ARU sets wage of the top 25 Wallabies, and the provinces have to pay a percentage of that wage.

The only sticking point could be the percentage the provinces have to pay, if it's to low you could see some teams accumulating a large number of Wallabies, if it's to high you could see players forced out of a province because the ARU values them to highly.

 

[TOCC]

I thought Kerevi played well last night, he displayed the physicality the Reds backline has been missing all year, surely he is one of the players signed for next year.

 

[Scotty]

The system doesn't have to be fair.

The ARU tops up players on merit. Only in marketing cases do they ever even discuss the location of a recruit. But more importantly actual recruits are now rare.

Your proposed system could see 5 scrum halfs receiving top up money and zero tight head props. That doesn't work in the national teams interest. The central contracts are there to add extra incentive to keep players who are in the national teams interest.

In all fairness that may not include Hunt in 2014 because of Kurtley Beale, Israel Folau and Matt To'omua. That's a shame, but that's contracting. You end up with the best available at the time you have an opening, not the best that will be available.

It isn't much of a system if it isn't fair.

Starting point for determining the merits of any system should be fairness in my opinion.

We now likely have a case where the total payments to Force players are likely in the order of 1M less than Tahs players, but the Force can't do anything about it - even if they have plenty of money to spend.

 

[Scotty]

Let the clubs pay the players within the cap.

Have the wallabies receive additional payments for:

- squad selection and training
- game payments
- marketing payments (ie set rates for ads and appearances)

 

[Scrubber2050]

James Horwill! Put that in ya pipe and smoke it Scrubber

TWAS - get real - I have always valued the bloke BUT he was playing shithouse. Objective people realise and acknowledge that!!!!!!!!!!!!

Last night he was awesome - back to his best. He played the best game in 2 years.

If he had played like that or even close to it at least in tha lsat year he would still be one of the first picks in the Wallabies and still be captain.

James knows he is / was under real pressure. The sign of a true champion is to respond to that pressure and he did that in no unxcertain terms.

 

[I like to watch]

Let the clubs pay the players within the cap.

Have the wallabies receive additional payments for:

- squad selection and training
- game payments
- marketing payments (ie set rates for ads and appearances)

The players in high demand,will not accept what is effectively a performance bonus,when their alternatives are guaranteed salaries.

 

[FilthRugby]

I don't mind Rocket Rod as a player, I think he lost confidence and his career was at a bit of a low when young Michael Gunn nearly put him in the PA Hospital with one of the best hits you could see in local rugby between University and Easts last year.

 

[Train Without a Station]

It isn't much of a system if it isn't fair.

Starting point for determining the merits of any system should be fairness in my opinion.

We now likely have a case where the total payments to Force players are likely in the order of 1M less than Tahs players, but the Force can't do anything about it - even if they have plenty of money to spend.

Are you for real? You've got limited funds to spread roughly across 25 spots to ensure the best for the money spinning arm of your organisation which ultimately determines the game'a health and future. Where does fair come in to it?

You seriously need to get some perspective or risk coming off sounding like tranquility did earlier in the year.

Any fairer system would have no further benefit to the Reds anyway. By virtue of rugby's link in Queensland's culture we produce with NSW the most talent and therefore obtain the best for less than the other 3 need to.

The only player that NSW has benefited from the system with is Folau.

Any other player they have which receives a top up or is in the wallaby system was developed by the NSW system and either chose to go back to NSW for reasons other than financial (Phipps, Hooper and Beale for example).

Barring rare marketing examples (Folau is the only one I'm aware of being specially recruited with the ARU's assistance, the system rewards the teams that develop wallabies in that those players receive top up income, which still does not tie them too any team.

If these funds are to ensure we have the best national team, how the hell is distributing them to teams that do not develop national quality players fair at all?

Nobody likes the guy who had it all complaining the moment something doesn't go his way. Don't be that guy Scotty.

Anyway, if any teams can complain it's the Force and Rebels. They have the same cap, have to pay overs to get the same players to want to go there and then due to normally ending up with second choice players, therefore making it even harder to produce top up worthy players and therefore be able to keep the best players they want.

And further to all that, don't we still have players on old top up deals that didn't make the squad this year anyway like the fainga'as? We hardly have anything to complain about.

 

[Scotty]

I am discussing the overall system, not how it affects the Reds. I would even suggest the reds get more top up money directed to their players than all except the Tahs.

If the ARU has a policy not to direct top up money to recruits, then that should be applied to all. Suggest though that this policy is going to be horses for courses.

You seem to imply that having an equitable distribution of funds will automatically mean players will go oversees, or it won't get to the right players. You seem to completely ignore the fact that the super teams want the best squad they can to win the tournament - they aren't going to simply give all money to one or two players.

You also seem to think the idea of a performance and profile ( marketing) based system will drive players away as they aren't guaranteed money (not that French clubs are good at paying injured players anyway). You seem to ignore the fact that if we did have this sort of system we might have kept a few more (eg Mowen might have stayed with say 30k match payments plus a 70k marketing contract).

The ARU are about to lose another player that may have been saved with a similar system.

 

[Braveheart81]

I am discussing the overall system, not how it affects the Reds. I would even suggest the reds get more top up money directed to their players than all except the Tahs.

You seem to imply that having an equitable distribution of funds will automatically mean players will go oversees, or it won't get to the right players. You seem to completely ignore the fact that the super teams want the best squad they can to win the tournament - they aren't going to simply give all money to one or two players.
.

If top up money is at the discretion of the Super Rugby teams then they will use the money to their best benefit. Most of the top ups would end up with players in key positions just like the NRL. It would be hugely detrimental to the Wallabies.

 

[Ruggo]

Hunt will easily regain a bunch of the weight he had to lose to play AFL. The AFL and Suns media has for years been commenting how hard he has to work to keep himself down to the 90ish kg mark. He'll certainly be a solid sized back 3 player or centre for that matter

Any AFL mate of mine a couple of years back we we saw the Suns live commented on how he still has legs like tree trunks.

 

[Highlander35]

I'm more than happy for some of the Tahs, Reds and Brumbies Top up money to make its way down to us and the Force if we're talking about equitable distribution thanks.

 

[tranquility]

I'm more than happy for some of the Tahs, Reds and Brumbies Top up money to make its way down to us and the Force if we're talking about equitable distribution thanks.

 

[Sully]

I'm more than happy for some of the Tahs, Reds and Brumbies Top up money to make its way down to us and the Force if we're talking about equitable distribution thanks.

More than happy for you to have the same amount of foreign players s us.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

 

[It is what it is]

Any AFL mate of mine a couple of years back we we saw the Suns live commented on how he still has legs like tree trunks.

I think I get what you're trying to say Ruggo - he's got big, strong legs.

 

[FilthRugby]

Interesting read here from Eddie Jones who believes the Reds number one priority is getting size in the back-row.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...die-jones-writes/story-fnii0lxl-1226969100193