Australian Rugby / RA

[Tomthumb]

So match-bonus instead of a salary top-up?

like i said, i doubt the way RA/NZRU approach contracting will allow it..

Well they really need to modernize the way they contract then, right?

You cant just use Super Rugby as a feeder comp for internationals and still expect people to care

 

[Adam84]

Only way it could work is if NZRU, RA and Fiji agree that top-ups will be paid to players regardless of the team they're playing.

But then the lack of uniformity across Aus/NZ/Fiji creates complexities around how the salary is split between national union and Super Rugby teams, the way NZ does it is different to Australia and Fiji and vice versa.

 

[Tomthumb]

OK, but then you are picking TT for the Wallabies from OS because he isn't staying here on a NZ or Australian Super Rugby salary.

Which seems a bit counter-productive

He's playing in the same competition and helping that competition's media rights deal by playing for a team that more Australians would watch simply because he's playing for them

Super Rugby needs to adapt, or it's going to die

 

[Adam84]

Well they really need to modernize the way they contract then, right?

You cant just use Super Rugby as a feeder comp for internationals and still expect people to care

Sorry is it wasn't clear, but i was asking a question... Are you saying the solution is to scrap RA top-ups and revert to a match-bonus only?

Would match-day bonus increase substantially to offset this? How do you think this would be received by players, removing a significant chunk of their salary and replaced with bonus's, would it improve retention or negatively impact on it?

 

[Tomthumb]

Only way it could work is if NZRU, RA and Fiji agree that top-ups will be paid to players regardless of the team they're playing.

But then the lack of uniformity across Aus/NZ/Fiji creates complexities around how the salary is split between national union and Super Rugby teams, the way NZ does it is different to Australia and Fiji and vice versa.

Super Rugby deals should be different to National deals. This is pretty standard in other sports, Rugby seems to be the only sport that makes elite professional competitions that are trying to make money essentially feeder comps

 

[Strewthcobber]

He's playing in the same competition and helping that competition's media rights deal by playing for a team that more Australians would watch simply because he's playing for them

Super Rugby needs to adapt, or it's going to die

The competition doesn't pay him though.

He gets paid to play for Australia. His preparation for that includes playing Super Rugby. You may not agree with that approach, but that's how it is, and that's how our best players want it

that makes elite professional competitions that are trying to make money

Are they doing that? I don't think they are. They would like it to be more sustainable sure, but "making money is nowhere even close

 

[Tomthumb]

Sorry is it wasn't clear, but i was asking a question... Are you saying the solution is to scrap RA top-ups and revert to a match-bonus only?

Would match-day bonus increase substantially to offset this? How do you think this would be received by players, removing a significant chunk of their salary and replaced with bonus's, would it improve retention or negatively impact on it?

It would be on a player to player basis. You could guarantee money to certain players

At a certain point there needs to be a longer term thought process. Instead of desperately overpaying to keep some players in Super Rugby now, genuinely make changes to Super Rugby so it can be a sustainable and profitably product so it's worth more at the tv rights negotiating table, and then use said money to pay the players.

It's pointless over paying players with money we don't have to keep them in a comp we don't care about

 

[SouthernX]

I believe it’s in the constitution for New Zealand to join Australia one day.

scrap the all blacks and pool all resources under the new nation newstrayla or auzealand

 

[Tomthumb]

The competition doesn't pay him though.

He gets paid to play for Australia. His preparation for that includes playing Super Rugby. You may not agree with that approach, but that's how it is, and that's how our best players want it

This is the biggest problem with the whole thing. Show me any successful comp that does this. Using the elite domestic competition in the Southern Hemisphere as a feeder comp. Whats the point

Are they doing that? I don't think they are. They would like it to be more sustainable sure, but "making money is nowhere even close

It's a professional competition. Being sustainable literally means making money

 

[Adam84]

So players of national interest still get set top-ups from RA? I don't quite grasp how this is different to what exsists now ?

If you don't qualify for a top-up then you're on a super rugby contract, if you qualify for a RA top-up then the salary is negotiated by RA and Super Rugby teams pay their share outside of the top-up.

What i've suggested is that Wallabies/Alll Blacks should still get their national top-ups regardless of Super Rugby teams; however both countries would need to agree on a model that splits the cost between top-up and super rugby team because that's currently the big different between RA and NZRU

 

[Tomthumb]

So players of national interest still get set top-ups from RA? I don't quite grasp how this is different to what exsists now ?

If you don't qualify for a top-up then you're on a super rugby contract, if you qualify for a RA top-up then the salary is negotiated by RA and Super Rugby teams pay their share outside of the top-up.

What i've suggested is that Wallabies/Alll Blacks should still get their national top-ups regardless of Super Rugby teams; however both countries would need to agree on a model that splits the cost between top-up and super rugby team because that's currently the big different between RA and NZRU

It's solved with two separate deals. Super Rugby team would pay him to play for them, and national team would pay him to play for them

 

[Adam84]

It's solved with two separate deals. Super Rugby team would pay him to play for them, and national team would pay him to play for them

which really isn't all that different to what happens now in Australia, and is the whole idea behind the top-ups

how NZ negotiate top-ups and breakdown between who pays what is slightly different to Australia, it's why they would need to agree on a standardised model if this model were to be implemented, and bring NZRPA and RUPA onboard as well. I think this part of agreeing on a model will be too challenging for both unions though..

 

[Strewthcobber]

Yep. All pro rugby players in NZ are employees of NZRU, not their Super Rugby or provincial teams.

Insurance, collective bargaining, injury management....etc. I reckon this all gets too hard no matter how good it would be for Super Rugby

 

[Strewthcobber]

This is the biggest problem with the whole thing. Show me any successful comp that does this. Using the elite domestic competition in the Southern Hemisphere as a feeder comp. Whats the point


It's a professional competition. Being sustainable literally means making money

URC does this. Sheffield Shield does this.

The point is to use Wallaby revenue to employ as many professional rugby players as we can afford.

It's pretty much the same up north. Six nations pays for almost all rugby up there. They just make so much money out of it that they can afford longer better domestic comps as well

 

[Omar Comin']

We should have a poll.

Would you rather your country a) priortised international success (noting this provides >80% of revenue for all rugby in both countires), or b) attempt to equalise Super Rugby as a competition to make it more competitive?

How do you know that equalising Super Rugby wouldn't also prioritise international success?

I don't think it's super obvious what prioritises international success. For example we could go 100% down the cohesion route and have a single Australian squad that plays together all season (a bit like the Jaguares/Pumas were when they were in Super Rugby). Alternatively we could remove all eligibility constraints and end up with the majority of the Wallabies squad playing in the top European leagues. Which would prioritise international success? Argentina have run this experiment and it's not super obvious which has been better for their test team.

 

[Tomthumb]

We should have a poll.

Would you rather your country a) priortised international success (noting this provides >80% of revenue for all rugby in both countires), or b) attempt to equalise Super Rugby as a competition to make it more competitive?

Why does it have to be an either or?

And why are we pretending that these two things are related?

 

[PhilClinton]

I like the idea of changing the contract structure to make it more incentive based, potentially across all the organisations involved with SRP (Super Rugby Pacific) and opening the door for cross-country player movement.

Have three mandatory base tiers of contract - development squad, main squad and marquee players. Only allow up to five marquee player contracts per squad. Maximum 2 years deals except marquee players who are 2 years plus a 1 year team option.

From there the incentives are baked in on number of games played, number of games won, team making the finals, selection in a national squad and the biggest being national team match payments.

The main problem I envision is that France and Japan would just come knocking with their big fat non-incentive based contracts which are more appealing.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

URC does this. Sheffield Shield does this.

The point is to use Wallaby revenue to employ as many professional rugby players as we can afford.

It's pretty much the same up north. Six nations pays for almost all rugby up there. They just make so much money out of it that they can afford longer better domestic comps as well

Yep, this is what I keep coming back to. In cricket, the national side is the principal product, it's what people go to watch. The BBL is a nice little side show but ultimately the national team is what we identify with. The Shield and other domestic comps is the pathway to playing in the top side.

Rugby to me feels a lot more like that than the AFL or NRL, which is the top level in their respective sports.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Yep, this is what I keep coming back to. In cricket, the national side is the principal product, it's what people go to watch. The BBL is a nice little side show but ultimately the national team is what we identify with. The Shield and other domestic comps is the pathway to playing in the top side.

Rugby to me feels a lot more like that than the AFL or NRL, which is the top level in their respective sports.

A nice little sideshow that averaged over 20k last season and drew in TV audiences we'd kill for. People like to disregard it as a sideshow but it rates better than any other league in the country that isn't the NRL or AFL. And the whole Rugby is like Cricket thing doesn't work in that there's not another professional sport similar to Cricket in Australia looking to directly compete for talent. So opting for a Sheffield Shield like approach will only continue us down our current path.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Yeah that's fair. Does the BBL rate better than the national side though?