ARU moves to kill off club player payments: A 3rd tier, club rugby and the $60k persuader

[TOCC]

Given that 9 of the Shute Shield Clubs made losses in 2010, 7 in 2011 and 7 in 2012 including some like Penrith, Gordon and Randwick who are on the brink of financial ruin the size of the player payments is irrelevant considering that they clubs are already spending beyond their means. Every club would have posted a profit in 2012 if it weren't for player payments.

A club like Penrith is forced to spend over half its budget on player payments yet it still cant compete with other teams, Randwick actually has pretty high revenue comparatively, but is struggling financially because it spends so much on players.

Now if a third tier is to be introduced above the shute shield the potential liability of these losses is only going to grow, as some have suggested there may be a drop in revenue for some of the clubs, the problem is only going to be exasperated.

This argument that removing player payments is going to degrade the level of the competition is ignoring the fact that the new third tier will allow player payments, the overall effect will be a greater level of play.

 

[wamberal]

Apparently clubs will have to pay for the privilege of entering the new competition. That's the way forward for us, for sure. Most of our clubs are struggling now, and they will have to pay for the privilege of losing money?

 

[lincoln]

I also see it as an exercise in futility to try to enforce amateurism in this day and age. If the NCAA, AAGPS, and the IOC can't do it, I have zero confidence in the ARU's ability to do so.

Fixed

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Given that 9 of the Shute Shield Clubs made losses in 2010, 7 in 2011 and 7 in 2012 including some like Penrith, Gordon and Randwick who are on the brink of financial ruin the size of the player payments is irrelevant considering that they clubs are already spending beyond their means. Every club would have posted a profit in 2012 if it weren't for player payments.

A club like Penrith is forced to spend over half its budget on player payments yet it still cant compete with other teams, Randwick actually has pretty high revenue comparatively, but is struggling financially because it spends so much on players.

Now if a third tier is to be introduced above the shute shield the potential liability of these losses is only going to grow, as some have suggested there may be a drop in revenue for some of the clubs, the problem is only going to be exasperated.

This argument that removing player payments is going to degrade the level of the competition is ignoring the fact that the new third tier will allow player payments, the overall effect will be a greater level of play.

Where are these players to play in the third tier coming from and how much are they to be paid?

 

[Quick Hands]

Given that 9 of the Shute Shield Clubs made losses in 2010, 7 in 2011 and 7 in 2012 including some like Penrith, Gordon and Randwick who are on the brink of financial ruin the size of the player payments is irrelevant considering that they clubs are already spending beyond their means. Every club would have posted a profit in 2012 if it weren't for player payments.

A club like Penrith is forced to spend over half its budget on player payments yet it still cant compete with other teams, Randwick actually has pretty high revenue comparatively, but is struggling financially because it spends so much on players.

Now if a third tier is to be introduced above the shute shield the potential liability of these losses is only going to grow, as some have suggested there may be a drop in revenue for some of the clubs, the problem is only going to be exasperated.

This argument that removing player payments is going to degrade the level of the competition is ignoring the fact that the new third tier will allow player payments, the overall effect will be a greater level of play.

I think that it's fairly simplistic to say that if you didn't have to pay players, you would make a profit. Having good players in your club, brings success, which in turns brings in sponsors and paying spectators and thus more income. At least some of the clubs who are losing money are doing so because of imcompetent management and/or failed investments.

Penrith has always needed extra support and has never really received it. I suspect that their income would be less than other clubs - see previous paragraph.

Payments to players or anyone else is governed by supply and demand and efforts by governing bodies to prevent them will nearly always fail and merely lead to inventive methods being found to still pay people.

It might suprise some, but some subbies clubs provide small payments in cash or kind.

A restraint on trade (i.e. an ability to earn money) needs to be reasonable or it is unenforceable at law. Sporting bodies have an appalling record in the courts trying to defend such restrictions - why bother?

Rugby is a professional sport, you can't make parts of it amateur. Many of those hankering for a return to the amateurism/shamateurism of the past are doing so from some sort of nostalgia for the past and/or misremembered glory, which if it ever existed, cannot be recreated in 2013.

 

[TOCC]

Listen, i'm not advocating the concept that ceasing player payments will improve the quality of the Shute Shield, thats not going to happen and ultimately you may see some players quit if the $10k allowances they are on annually cease.

Player payments are a financial liability, there is no disputing that... Clubs will likely face reduced revenue if a new tier is injected above the Shute Shield/Premier Grade competitions, thus the liability of player payments and the financial stability of these clubs will move even closer to the brink if they continue along that path.

Apparently clubs will have to pay for the privilege of entering the new competition. That's the way forward for us, for sure. Most of our clubs are struggling now, and they will have to pay for the privilege of losing money?

Obviously then a large number of clubs are going to miss out.. You have to ask yourself, is having a select number of clubs from each competition(3rd tier) and subsequently a higher level of rugby for players to develop of more benefit to Australian Rugby then the Shute Shield and Premier Grade rugby comp in their current form?

 

[It is what it is]

Given that 9 of the Shute Shield Clubs made losses in 2010, 7 in 2011 and 7 in 2012 including some like Penrith, Gordon and Randwick who are on the brink of financial ruin the size of the player payments is irrelevant considering that they clubs are already spending beyond their means. Every club would have posted a profit in 2012 if it weren't for player payments.

A club like Penrith is forced to spend over half its budget on player payments yet it still cant compete with other teams, Randwick actually has pretty high revenue comparatively, but is struggling financially because it spends so much on players.

Now if a third tier is to be introduced above the shute shield the potential liability of these losses is only going to grow, as some have suggested there may be a drop in revenue for some of the clubs, the problem is only going to be exasperated.

This argument that removing player payments is going to degrade the level of the competition is ignoring the fact that the new third tier will allow player payments, the overall effect will be a greater level of play.

Randwick were paying 'win only' payments during those years so losing most of their games helped them financially......a strategy only a Labor Treasurer could come up with.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Listen, i'm not advocating the concept that ceasing player payments will improve the quality of the Shute Shield, thats not going to happen and ultimately you may see some players quit if the $10k allowances they are on annually cease.

Player payments are a financial liability, there is no disputing that. Clubs will likely face reduced revenue if a new tier is injected above the Shute Shield/Premier Grade competitions, thus the liability of player payments and the financial stability of these clubs will move even closer to the brink if they continue along that path.


Obviously then a large number of clubs are going to miss out.. You have to ask yourself, is having a select number of clubs from each competition(3rd tier) and subsequently a higher level of rugby for players to develop of more benefit to Australian Rugby then the Shute Shield and Premier Grade rugby comp in their current form?

If the ARU want to set up a 3rd tier why does it follow that the 2nd tier (if that's what club rugby is) should be prevented from paying players?
This has ACCC implications all over it.
As i recall it, in Sydney the present competition structure is the result of the clubs walking away from the SRU - why wouldn't they do that again?

 

[TOCC]

If the ARU want to set up a 3rd tier why does it follow that the 2nd tier (if that's what club rugby is) should be prevented from paying players?
This has ACCC implications all over it.
As i recall it, in Sydney the present competition structure is the result of the clubs walking away from the SRU - why wouldn't they do that again?

Financial liability...
Ask yourself, will revenue decrease if a tier is introduced above the Shute Shield? If a club defaults, ultimately who will be responsible for bailing them out? the governing body perhaps?

Its well known that many of the clubs are already at risk of defaulting yet they continue to pay players, why does a club which is financially strained continue to make player payments? What happens if the clubs who struggle financially cease payments but the richer clubs continue to pay there players?

 

[I like to watch]

I would guess that the governing body,will let any failed clubs to go to the wall.Exposing directors to claims from creditors of insolvent trading.
The "at risk" clubs continue to pay players,because with paid players they are barely competitive.Without these players,they will be cannon fodder.

 

[SouthernX]

I think this is great. It's what Perth needs. It will attacked more kids to the game and make guys see a real path to the team.

Whilst I am a advocate for a national competition, I am not a advocate for FORCE/REBELS player playing in the local comp... IF we don't have this national competition.

The Rebels do have the right frame of mind, sending their players back to Brisbane & Sydney to get more exposure in high rate footy.

Asking Player X to turn out for Associates/Cottesloe in the farcical competiton which is Perth Rugby is only detrimental to their development.

Think about the fringe Force kid who's training with the force but can't quite crack that 22. He's going up against a world class player like McMeniman or James O'Connor in training but then turning out to Perth Rugby on the weekend against a carpenter or accountant in Perth Premier Rugby who would have a hard time making 2nd grade in Brisbane/Sydney.

If you were to throw this Force kid in amongst a super campaign due to a injury with his only game experience being the Perth Premier Rugby and the occasional curtain raiser.. he's gonna be like a deer in headlights.

Whilst Premier Rugby/Shute Shield might not be quite ITM Cup. It's the best thing Australia has to offer until we get this national comp off the ground.

The Force will continue to be bottom dwellers until they allow their homesick recruits return to Brisbane/Sydney to develop their skills in Premier/Shute Shield otherwise you'll never have the opportunity to build depth with match experience

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Financial liability.
Ask yourself, will revenue decrease if a tier is introduced above the Shute Shield? If a club defaults, ultimately who will be responsible for bailing them out? the governing body perhaps?

Its well known that many of the clubs are already at risk of defaulting yet they continue to pay players, why does a club which is financially strained continue to make player payments? What happens if the clubs who struggle financially cease payments but the richer clubs continue to pay there players?

You cannot have the hybrid proposed where 3 or 4 clubs are given access to the best players by being allowed to pay them because they are playing in the National club comp while the lesser clubs have to play those clubs in Premier Rugby or SS without being allowed to pay their players.
There is no reason why or legal basis for the "governing body" to bale out clubs who overextend themselves. They've not done it in the past.
The clubs seem to be taking their trading while insolvent obligations pretty seriously.

 

[Quick Hands]

This whole proposal has potential disaster written all over it and appears to be ill-thought out and done without consultation with those currently running successful SS clubs. There are quite a number of them which are quite well run and are successful in developing players. Why wouldn't you tap into those clubs and support them? Generally they're the ones paying their players in either cash or kind, are attracting plenty of sponsorship dollars and supporters who pay to go and also buy merchandise.

 

[wamberal]

It might be worth pointing out that the vast majority of opinion here is from Sydney people.


I wonder what the rest of the nation thinks?

 

[TOCC]

You cannot have the hybrid proposed where 3 or 4 clubs are given access to the best players by being allowed to pay them because they are playing in the National club comp while the lesser clubs have to play those clubs in Premier Rugby or SS without being allowed to pay their players.
There is no reason why or legal basis for the "governing body" to bale out clubs who overextend themselves. They've not done it in the past.
The clubs seem to be taking their trading while insolvent obligations pretty seriously.

They have done it in the past, in most cases the governing body has interjected before the club or union actually fell into insolvency.. It's happened at the state level to both the NSWRU and QRU, it's happened in the past 2 seasons to both the Sunshine Coast Stingrays and Gold Coast Breakers and correct me if I'm wrong but it also happened to Parramatta or Penrith 2 years ago.

I do agree that promoting existing teams into a new completion could cause other players to gravitate to these clubs, so that's obviously something which would need to be addressed, and that would also depend on how the teams are actually put to tender and franchised.

 

[Forcefield]

I wonder what the rest of the nation thinks?

I don't know about anyone else but I am sick to death of people saying don't fuck with the Shute Shield because Sydney produces the majority of Super Rugby players. That's a cyclical and invalid argument. Firstly, we (Everyone who isn't a Waratahs fan) don't want Sydney to produce the majority of players, we want each state to be producing. That is the best outcome for the health of the Wallabies/Australian rugby. The Wallabies are the main product that fund rugby in Australia. Wallabies failing will result in everything below them failing. Secondly, Sydney gets the money from the ARU. I haven't seen a recent update of what the ARU gives to each state but I recall a couple of years ago it being something along the lines of 4 million to NSW, 2 to QLD and less than 500,000 to each of the remaining states (I have a feeling it was 200,000 to WA). If anyone has recent stats, I'd love to see them. How do you expect anyone else to develop players if you never give them the opportunity?

In my opinion, the Shute Shield is a mess. Sydney Uni are pretty much untouchable. Young guys who were developed by other clubs want to play for Uni because they will look good and get a better shot at higher honours.

What is the solution if no 3rd Tier competition is made? Put more money into the SS and Brissie comps? What will that do for Perth and Melbourne? What will that really change? Relying almost solely on the SS and Brisbane comp has seen us slide further and further away from being top of the world. We need something else, something different.

The Force will continue to be bottom dwellers until they allow their homesick recruits return to Brisbane/Sydney to develop their skills in Premier/Shute Shield otherwise you'll never have the opportunity to build depth with match experience

The Force will continue to be bottom dwellers until we have a squad of mostly Western Australian players. Over paying for Eastern States talent has got us nowhere and will get us nowhere. But even that might not be enough, you get your guys like Kyle Godwin who can go from U20s to starting Super Rugby without a worry but there are lots of kids with potential in WA who need an option other than going to Brisbane or Sydney to take their game to the next level.

 

[I like to watch]

Having a 3rd tier, is I understand universally supported.
Having 4 of these teams competing in both the SS & the 3rd tier is the issue for most IMO.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Having a 3rd tier, is I understand universally supported.
Having 4 of these teams competing in both the SS & the 3rd tier is the issue for most IMO.

The answer is simple but the clubs may not like it as it would be too much like the ARC for their liking. Make it a representative thing. Remove the club element in terms of competing as individual entities. Provide the clubs with a say or at the very least an interest in the competition, play games at the club grounds and allow them to keep the gate etc.

 

[Dave Beat]

So we now are watching the Wobblies, whilst the NRL & AFL get to put on their show. There seems to be a common chant at the moment - top tier rugby needs to be played now - it is simply the structure that is being debated.


Two key points (of many many many mind you)
1. A club needs to be financial. - Uni yes.
2. A club needs to have grass roots. Uni no.
I am not against what Uni has achieved in any way, but they are different pure and simple. Let them keep offering their scholarships as it is a benefit that rugby has as a whole, and that is good for the code - but do not include them in the 3rd tier and this will distribute out their super players.

Shute players being made to play in other states in the 3rd tier - I don't agree with it;
They say they are trying to improve their comp and exposure - but they are stopping their players coming through. Why not extend their marquee player entitlement and we / they take advantage of players offshore to grow there / our rugby.

Make it a representative thing. Remove the club element in terms of competing as individual entities. Provide the clubs with a say or at the very least an interest in the competition, play games at the club grounds and allow them to keep the gate etc.

.
I like that model as well, but if the Shute finishes in July what about all the other players and the clubs.

 

[wamberal]

Dave,

I agree with most of what you are saying. Time for some hard talking and straight shooting. Also time for all stakeholders, from the top to the bottom, to understand and accept that we are in critical times for the future of our game. We are slowly slipping down the ladder of public interest, and unless and until we take some radical steps, that fall will continue, inexorably.

In the past we have survived, and even prospered from time to time, on the back of a good Wallabies side, coupled with the ineptitude of our main competitor. Those days are gone, they will only return if we put the effort in to make them return. And that will take guts, effort, and self-sacrifice.


The haves will have to be prepared to make sacrifices for the have-nots.