Aussie Player Exodus

[Omar Comin']

I see none of that occuring..

Next broadcast agreement will take place in 5 years, none of those teams(Japan, USA, Canada) will be good enough to compete with the SANZAR teams by then.
The Pacific Nations team was a failure, not from a performance perspective but the off-field support.. The model was experimented with and won't come back again, the individual nations did't like it..They want to represent their individual nations.

The best way forward for Japan, USA and Canada is though the Pacific Nations Cup model, they are all of a similar standard and hopefully this competition can grow into something of value. The Pacific nation teams just need extra exposure against the Tier 1 teams, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa should all be playing at least 1 test against one of these teams each year.

I said decade and a lot can happen in 10 years. I'll bet that all these countries are competitive by that point. By 2025 Japan will have been involved in Super Rugby for 9 years. North America may have had its own professional competition for 7 or 8. 10 years ago there were hardly any professional American players and now both Canada and US have something like 10 players in top European club squads. Samu Manoa is one of the best players in European rugby, Canada should have beaten Scotland in June. The US have run Ireland, Italy and Scotland close and Japan have beaten Italy and Wales (minus their Lions) in recent years. With full professionalism and access to better competitions these players and teams will develop rapidly.

The Pacific Nations Cup would grow very slowly left as it is. It's a 6 team competition played in a 3 week window. For rugby to really progress commercially in these countries they need to be in the big leagues. And SANZAR will benefit hugely from rugby developing in these countries if they are involved in SANZAR competitions.

I think you could even add them in the next few years with the right format. For example, lets say you have the Pacific Nations involved as individual countries. Then you could have two groups of 5 that play a single round robin. A top group and a challenger group. The top group gets ranked 1 to 5 after the round robin and play quarter finals along with the top 3 teams from the next group (who are ranked 6 to 8). The winners play semis and final, while the losing quarter finalists could play off for 5th place and a spot in the top group for the next season. You could have a format like that for a few years until all the teams are competitive enough that you can move to 2 evenly seeded pools.

 

[FairWeatherAussie]

Has it been discussed on this thread how we transition to selecting overseas players in 2016?

I'm not saying if, but how. It is quite likely that the majority, and maybe close to all, of The Wallabies first choices will be playing overseas after the world cup. There exists a head stuck in the sand attitude that the World Cup comes every four years and we've always survived the small exodus, why should this time be any different. This ignores the fact that this time is actually different. Europe in general, and France specifically, are moving towards an English premiership league (football) business model. Bring in as much money as possible, and pay the best players in the world irrespective of nationality. There is a huge amount of money of money in French rugby at the moment. And with the globalization of rugby it would be niave to assume that any Wallaby player or candidate hasn't already been offered 2 to 3 times what the ARU can afford to pay them. And I doubt any player missed Matt Giteaus difficult contract decisions (between being well paid to stay in Bandol, a very beautiful part of the world just outside of Toulon, or to move and earn an even higher million a year). It's no coincidence that a year out from a World Cup a large number of players have already announced that they will be moving, and an also large number of prominent others have only re-signed until the end of 2015, allowing them to move and triple their income from 2016 onwards.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Well some of those leaving might want to have their contracts denominated in $US and those who have not signed might want to sign before the Greece election.

 

[FairWeatherAussie]

I believe the best way forward is for the ARU to try and negotiate with the NZ counterparts to jointly announce that both countries will select overseas players. They will have the same issues as us, although they obviously enjoy much greater depth. This leaves our respective super teams on an equal basis, and equal to the SA teams, who have already given leave to players wanting to play overseas.

And anyone disagreeing because they argue that it will lead to a dilution of super rugby should be summarially ignored. I've never watch a single super team play at full strength, even the first game of the season, and I don't know anyone who has. And I've never enjoyed any game less so because of it, and I don't know anyone who has. Australian super teams are going to be playing mostly developmental players anyway, with most of the rest going to France, as long as they're competitive with the kiwi teams I'll be joyous supporting them.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

^^^^Slippery slope to looking/playing/feeling like the socceroos

 

[FairWeatherAussie]

Well some of those leaving might want to have their contracts denominated in $US and those who have not signed might want to sign before the Greece election.

Any financial advisor worth their weight in salt should probably advise them to open a free interactive brokers account and hedge their euro salary to US$. But I doubt there is any financial advisor worth that much salt.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Any financial advisor worth their weight in salt should probably advise them to open a free interactive brokers account and hedge their euro salary to US$. But I doubt there is any financial advisor worth that much salt.

It was my snide way of raising a question as to how much money might still be floating around in european rugby shortly

 

[FairWeatherAussie]

^^^^Slippery slope to looking/playing/feeling like the socceroos

If we don't start selecting overseas players we become a 6-8 ranked team in the world. Not a 2-3 ranked team who'se supporters (me) constantly get pissed off that we can't regain no 1.

 

[FairWeatherAussie]

It was my snide way of raising a question as to how much money might still be floating around in european rugby shortly

I live in France. I honestly don't know how this country continues to survive sometimes. It will be very badly hit if a global recession 2 hits. But rugby is based in the less economically affect farming heartlands.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

If we don't start selecting overseas players we become a 6-8 ranked team in the world. Not a 2-3 ranked team who'se supporters (me) constantly get pissed off that can't regain no 1.

Well I think you may need to "adjust your expectations" as they say.
Australian supremacy in union has always been transient.
We got the jump on every one in 1995 when it went pro, possibly because there was a lot of "rugby" knowledge lurking in league that could be deployed instantly into the pro union game. Possibly also because we did not have powerful clubs paying the salaries as they did in the UK.
Everyone has caught up and we are back to where we have always been historically - if not punching slightly above our weight.
Nothing wrong with aiming for it but being #1 will be an exception, not the rule.

 

[FairWeatherAussie]

Well I think you may need to "adjust your expectations" as they say.
Australian supremacy in union has always been transient.
We got the jump on every one in 1995 when it went pro, possibly because there was a lot of "rugby" knowledge lurking in league that could be deployed instantly into the pro union game. Possibly also because we did not have powerful clubs paying the salaries as they did in the UK.
Everyone has caught up and we are back to where we have always been historically - if not punching slightly above our weight.
Nothing wrong with aiming for it but being #1 will be an exception, not the rule.

Staying at 2-3 and being pissed off that we are not number 1 is acceptable for someone as unambitious as myself. I just don't want to hold my head up if we drop to number 8.

 

[FairWeatherAussie]

And my basic comment is that if we don't actually start selecting overseas players we drop to 6-8 or maybe lower in 2016-2017

 

[Wilson]

There is a sabbatical system coming in from 2016 (not sure exactly when it starts) which will see some overseas based players in the wallabies, as well as some in the sevens squad but these will be rare, at least at first. My understanding is it's one non wallaby per super rugby team allowed a sabbatical and the ARU negotiates the top 30 separately with sabbaticals being one season away as part of a three year deal.

 

[Braveheart81]

Has it been discussed on this thread how we transition to selecting overseas players in 2016?

I'm not saying if, but how. It is quite likely that the majority, and maybe close to all, of The Wallabies first choices will be playing overseas after the world cup. There exists a head stuck in the sand attitude that the World Cup comes every four years and we've always survived the small exodus, why should this time be any different. This ignores the fact that this time is actually different. Europe in general, and France specifically, are moving towards an English premiership league (football) business model. Bring in as much money as possible, and pay the best players in the world irrespective of nationality. There is a huge amount of money of money in French rugby at the moment. And with the globalization of rugby it would be niave to assume that any Wallaby player or candidate hasn't already been offered 2 to 3 times what the ARU can afford to pay them. And I doubt any player missed Matt Giteaus difficult contract decisions (between being well paid to stay in Bandol, a very beautiful part of the world just outside of Toulon, or to move and earn an even higher million a year). It's no coincidence that a year out from a World Cup a large number of players have already announced that they will be moving, and an also large number of prominent others have only re-signed until the end of 2015, allowing them to move and triple their income from 2016 onwards.

I disagree that in 2016 we're likely to see the majority of first choice Wallabies playing overseas.

Of the ones announced so far, none of those players are likely to be starting XV players in 2016. Horwill, AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), Higginbotham and Genia are all around the mark but they're getting older and to varying degrees, their spot in a matchday 23 is becoming less secure.

The players who are most difficult to keep are the ones who are outside the top 25 ARU contracted players but are still there amongst the test side regularly. They have the most to gain financially from heading to Europe/Japan.

If Kepu announces he is leaving then he will probably be the first player who would be in our best XV in 2016 to go.

I think a wait and see approach is best. As Wilson said, the sabbatical system has been announced to give the ARU (and Super Rugby teams) some leverage to keep their key players.

 

[Quick Hands]

I live in France.

I'm jealous already.

 

[Braveheart81]

And anyone disagreeing because they argue that it will lead to a dilution of super rugby should be summarially ignored. I've never watch a single super team play at full strength, even the first game of the season, and I don't know anyone who has. And I've never enjoyed any game less so because of it, and I don't know anyone who has. Australian super teams are going to be playing mostly developmental players anyway, with most of the rest going to France, as long as they're competitive with the kiwi teams I'll be joyous supporting them.

Huh?

When do Super Rugby sides not select their best team that is fit and available?

The only times I have seen fit players rested is the Force against the B&I Lions and some of the teams during RWC years.

 

[TOCC]

I think you could even add them in the next few years with the right format. For example, lets say you have the Pacific Nations involved as individual countries. Then you could have two groups of 5 that play a single round robin. A top group and a challenger group. The top group gets ranked 1 to 5 after the round robin and play quarter finals along with the top 3 teams from the next group (who are ranked 6 to 8). The winners play semis and final, while the losing quarter finalists could play off for 5th place and a spot in the top group for the next season. You could have a format like that for a few years until all the teams are competitive enough that you can move to 2 evenly seeded pools.

SANZAR would never support such a competition, already Argentina are a financial burden because they don't generate the same gate takings as the other three, when Argentina play in Australia, New Zealand or South Africa their matches rate lower and crowds are smaller.. SANZAR nations appreciate the Rugby Championship because it is the top 3 teams in the world(and Argentina), the high level of standard keeps them as the best teams in the world.. They won't compromise this..

There are avenues for those countries you have mentioned to improve, but it's not through the rugby championship.. There is no reason the pacific nations cup can't morph into a successful commercial product of its own..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Quick Hands]

And my basic comment is that if we don't actually start selecting overseas players we drop to 6-8 or maybe lower in 2016-2017

I agree it will very likely happen, but it won't be as early as 2016. It won't happen until Australia drop down the world rankings and consistently lose more games against tier 1 countries than we win on a regular basis. I hope that we don't drop down that far, but that will depend on how many top players that we lose from quite a thin base. It will take us becoming roughly equal to Italy, Argentina and Scotland before any chance is contemplated.

I think that there are two main reasons why it won't happen by 2016: there is little support from the rugby community in Australia to do so and to do so before a drop in rankings would require the ARU administration to be proactive rather than reactive (and we know that there is no chance of that happening).

 

[Quick Hands]

SANZAR would never support such a competition, already Argentina are a financial burden because they don't generate the same gate takings as the other three, when Argentina play in Australia, New Zealand or South Africa their matches rate lower and crowds are smaller.. SANZAR nations appreciate the Rugby Championship because it is the top 3 teams in the world(and Argentina), the high level of standard keeps them as the best teams in the world.. They won't compromise this..

There are avenues for those countries you have mentioned to improve, but it's not through the rugby championship.. There is no reason the pacific nations cup can't morph into a successful commercial product of its own..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with your comments on playing standard, but I think that SANZAR have shown with super 18 that they are more than open to compromise. IMO if it is attractive financially they'll let Japan, Canada and US in - although this would be at least 5 and possibly 10 years or more away. Things never stay the same, change is inevitable - it's how administrators manage change that is important.

Some people see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say why not?
George Bernard Shaw

 

[Omar Comin']

If expansion into Asia and South America is successful, and if North American rugby becomes aligned with SANZAR at least at test level, then I think we'll be able to continue paying top players to stay in Australia.

And if expansion into Asia and America is really, really successful, then it's the Europeans who will have to worry about retaining their best players!

Having Super Rugby become a feeder league for European rugby, with pretty much every Wallaby based overseas would be a disaster IMO.