ARU players pool

[fatprop]

or they say to Elsom, we will pay you more to play with the Reds.

At the moment they get the top up and can play wherever.

 

[Biffo]

or they say to Elsom, we will pay you more to play with the Reds.

At the moment they get the top up and can play wherever.

That is exactly the intention of the top-up. The top-up is to keep the players in Australia, full stop.

If you want to allocate Wallabies to provinces which can't solve their own problems, then an equalization fund is one option - a player is compensated financially by going where other factors are a deterrent to him. If you wanted to do that, the way is for the ARU to make grants to the lame province to enable it to improve its competitive position with the others in recruiting and retention. Such money would go through province accounts.

Please don't confuse the top-up with subsidizing the lame. There is a huge difference.

Lindommer wrote, correctly, of ARU funds being used equitably. Why should the paying attenders at games and the tv watchers of NSW, who contribute the great majority of ARU revenue excluding sponsorship, be forced to subsidize the Reds to mismanage their team? The issue with the Force is a little different - there the problem seems to be that the tender petals and player power advocates among the roster don't like Mitch too much. The solution there is for the Force management to show the dissenters the access to Route 1, eastbound - I am sure they'd enjoy conditions in Brisbane or club football in Sydney.

 

[formeropenside]

Yeah, right. The ARU says to four Wallaby contract holders who are at the Brumbies "you have to go to Brisbane to boost the poor Reds, or you lose your top-up". Can you think of a better way of assisting the European and Japanese recruitment of top quality players from Australia?

I would not want this to happen either, balance will be restored to the Force in a few years, and I'd hate to see good Queenslanders directed to move south.

Of course, very few of those Brumby players were actually Brumby developed, but thats another story. It seems heart has no place in the modern game.

 

[Scarfman]

a relatively free market economy, security of property, the availability of capital generally, the rule of law etc have been an immense and unprecedented success in terms of wealth, life expectancy, quality of life etc.

Totally off-topic, but ...

- security of property and rule of law have nothing to do with markets.
- the most free-market economy in the world lags well behind social-democratic states in life-expectancy and most quality of life indicators.

 

[formeropenside]

*shrug* I had a big post but deleted it to stay on topic and generally avoid discussing sex, politics or religion.

 

[Biffo]

It seems heart has no place in the modern game.

No place whatever in the fully professional segment of the game.

I have been thinking of writing a series of essays for TYS/ GGR on the implications of the first 14 years of professionalism. There are some possibly very interesting topics, including (1) where in the hierarchy does professionalism stop and the traditional game take over (2) why are so many top coaches former school teachers? (3) when do the first career professional players occupy all paid spots? (4) clubs and franchises (5) the death of representative rugby (6) priorities for expanding the game globally. Will get around to it some time.

 

[Biffo]

*shrug* I had a big post but deleted it to stay on topic and generally avoid discussing sex, politics or religion.

:lmao: thanks for making my day

 

[Lindommer]

Please refer to my post number 66 on this thread. I repeat: All four Australian provinces receive exactly the same amount in top-ups from the ARU and it is precisely zero. The top-up is a payment to a player of Wallaby standard to remunerate him aptly and to provide an incentive to stay within Australia. The top-up is not part of revenue for any province. There is not, never has been and must never be, any tying of the top-up to the province which a player selects.

My original words:

The ARU should channel payments to the four (and five) Super sides through contracted Wallabies in equal amounts.

The ARU is, in effect, giving more money to the Brumbies than the Reds as it is paying their Wallabies' wages rather than the ACTRU. How about the ARU say to all Super sides, "We'll give you all $3 mill (or whatever) for Wallabies' top ups, and you can do what you like with it as long as you spend it on Wallabies."

I don't think the ARU is properly discharging its responsibility to develop rugby in Australia by funding one Super side, albeit directly into the players' bank accounts rather than through the union, to the detriment of others. Australian rugby is only as strong as the weakest side. New Zealand has protocols in place to ensure most capable players get a start and the weakest union is given a chance to improve. We should note their successes in Super rugby and adapt their protocols to suit our circumstances.