ARU Player Contracts shift - Thoughts?

[Karl]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...layer-deals-20120416-1x3uo.html#ixzz1sM4dNSv4

What is the view on the impact of this move?

The ARU had been concerned that for some years there were numerous players nearing the end of their careers at provincial level who had substantial ARU top-ups, and were commanding salaries of around $400,000 to 450,000 even though there was no likelihood of them again playing Test rugby.


Wallabies and Reds winger Digby Ioane could easily be the last player to secure a long national contract, after the ARU and Queensland late last year signed him to a three-year deal, so that he did not leave for Japan, where he had been offered a seven-figure sum.


Putting even more pressure on provincial players to perform is that the ARU recently announced it was dramatically cutting back the number of ''top-up'' contracts it would offer per year. Four years ago, the number of players on top-ups was 54.


This year it will be between 30 and 35, with 32 the anticipated final number.


When ARU chief executive John O'Neill revealed the cutbacks this month, he said that having 54 players on national contracts ''was, for a lot of reasons, too many, unsustainable, highly impractical and too costly''.


This restriction and shorter contracts are bound to see more Australian provincial players who are in their final seasons of Super Rugby having to look overseas, where they are likely to get more lucrative offers than what can provided by their province.


Many players, including several at the Waratahs, are well into negotiations or are near to finalising deals with northern hemisphere clubs because they realise they have little chance of securing an ARU contract.


Adding to the uncertainty is that the players must finalise their provincial contracts before going into negotiations over their Wallabies deals. The Australian provinces are also awaiting final confirmation of what their salary cap will be next season, with the most likely scenario being $4.8 million, but at least the last $800,000 of that must come from the province.


This was aimed at making the Australian provinces more accountable, and working within their own budget constraints.


The Waratahs also may wait another week before picking Rocky Elsom, with the selectors likely to stick with the line-up that defeated the Force for Saturday night's match against the Rebels in Sydney.


Elsom, who has not played this season, was expected to be available this week, but only had minimal involvement in yesterday's training session. He is expected to train this morning. NSW selectors will then decide whether he will be available for the match against the Rebels.
Waratahs coach Michael Foley last night appeared to be eager to stick with the status quo. When asked if his captain would return via the bench on Saturday night, Foley said: ''That's a possibility. But the guys who have been involved have played very well. Unless one of those guys was carrying a niggle, or needed a rest, I would think they would be the ones we would go with.''
http://www.fairfax.com.au/ads-by-google.html

 

[waratahjesus]

Sounds like work choices.

 

[wamberal]

It's a bit of a risk, but probably an unavoidable one. No doubt some players will be lost for bigger money overseas, but just as hopefully the ones we want to retain for the Wobblies will be recognised and will stay here. It will probably result in a younger, less experienced, but hungrier cohort, and I think that is probably a good thing (and it will obviously be cheaper to maintain them).

 

[Braveheart81]

The part where players have to sign up with a super rugby team before the ARU will negotiate with them is interesting.

It makes it a very tough choice to people who would otherwise only in Australia if they are contracted with the Wallabies.

I'd guess that in reality players will be given some sort of indication in advance as to whether there is likely to be a Wallaby contract on offer.

 

[Karl]

Digby Ioane could easily be the last player to secure a long national contract, after the ARU and Queensland late last year signed him to a three-year deal,

Three Years doesn't seem a long contract unless the player is literally at the end of their career. I would have thought getting the "at their peak" and "young guns" players onto 3 year contracts was desirable. Have the older guys or the "we don't know about you yet but you look good so far" ones on short contracts.

What about the number, is 32 enough? There is usually a what, 26 man squad for a tour? So with only 32 on contract there is only a 6 player buffer where in the past they were obviously contracting for double the amount of a Test/International squad. 54 might be too many, particularly if there are long term contracts for twilight players eating up the cash, but is 32 enough, particularly 32 less attractive contracts?

The other things they need to consider are player retention and adequate redundance. 32 seems a little skinny.