Australian Rugby / RA

[stillmissit]

There are way more than 2 or 3 options.

You need time, first to convince people of the need to make a major change, and that does take time.

Then you need to explore, what are the various options, then determine of these options which one is best suited to Australian Rugby needs.

Having made this decision, determine what structural changes are needed and like all of the above these need to be negotiated.

Having reached this point, its a matter of selling the idea to all the major backers, sponsors, broadcasters etc.

Then bring all the people together and implement the plan, maybe it would not take five years but I doubt it could be done in under four years.

The reason the Nobody Really Cares competitions failed was because they were rushed, from start to finish in six months.

I maintain it can't be done quickly

Great logical thinking Half BUT do we have 4 years? We are going to hit an existential threat if Joe can't lift us off the toilet.

We need to build our amateur(ish) club rugby so that people can play the game without clubs going bankrupt by stupid management. This of course raises the big elephant in the room do young men want to play rugby or just watch it? We already know young women want to play it.

 

[stillmissit]

The third party endorsements are only good if the sport has a profile which Rugby has a small one as of now. We aren't going to just see Adidas throw the money they do at Nathan Cleary at Tate McDermott. People don't care enough.

Agree but we ain't looking for an Adidas we are looking for a Michael/Michelle Somebody who has been successful and as part of the promotion of the company feels they'd like to support rugby in a small way by say 250-500k a year. There would need to be some clothing AD or something similar.
Fully agree regarding club ownership. Most of our multi-millionaires are self-made and as you say not frivolous with their money and Rugby ain't at the stage of a charity YET!

 

[Strewthcobber]

I have never given much thought to how they are paid, I assume there was an insufficient win bonus (if there is one).
Why not pay the guys the basics and let companies or individuals sponsor our best International players, that way average guys may look elsewhere and if the money is good enough and they want to stay we get to keep the top players.

There is a small win bonus attached to the Wallaby match payments these days I beleive, but I don't think it would make much of a difference one way or another.

Like others have said, I don't think there is the interest for player level sponsorship.

The Rebels/Brumbies/Tahs are barely getting $1m sponsorship (corrected by Adam below) levels for the entire team as it is. (Reds do a lot better than this to their credit)

And as with most things in rugby.au, most organisations with big $$$ are only interested in sponsoring the Wallabies

 

[Braveheart81]

A lot of the suggestions involve players (particularly the highest paid players) giving up substantial amounts of guaranteed money and replace it with potential sponsorships, non-guaranteed match payments etc.

There was a suggestion a page or so ago that marquee players would be on two year contracts with a third year as a team option.

The better and more in demand players are, the more bargaining power they have and the less concessions they will accept in contracts. They want guaranteed money and certainly don't want one-sided contract demands such as the team having an option to keep them or not (but the same not applying in reverse).

This is the crux of moving to a different model. You can't make it less appealing to players than the status quo and expect players to be on board with it. I also don't think you can move forward with anything that doesn't have the support of the players.

 

[Tomthumb]

A lot of the suggestions involve players (particularly the highest paid players) giving up substantial amounts of guaranteed money and replace it with potential sponsorships, non-guaranteed match payments etc.

There was a suggestion a page or so ago that marquee players would be on two year contracts with a third year as a team option.

The better and more in demand players are, the more bargaining power they have and the less concessions they will accept in contracts. They want guaranteed money and certainly don't want one-sided contract demands such as the team having an option to keep them or not (but the same not applying in reverse).

This is the crux of moving to a different model. You can't make it less appealing to players than the status quo and expect players to be on board with it. I also don't think you can move forward with anything that doesn't have the support of the players.

Problem is that the current money being shelled out to players means Australian rugby loses money hand over fist

It would at least make sense if the top players here made any tangible difference on the field to either their Super team or the National team, but they don't even do that. As it stands, the status quo requires supposed top players to be paid with money the ARU doesn't have, in order for our Super sides to never win anything and have the 9th best National team in the world

Something needs to change. Exactly what is up for debate, but the only certain thing is the status quo will lead to the end of Professional rugby in Australia. It's that dire

 

[stillmissit]

A lot of the suggestions involve players (particularly the highest paid players) giving up substantial amounts of guaranteed money and replace it with potential sponsorships, non-guaranteed match payments etc.

There was a suggestion a page or so ago that marquee players would be on two year contracts with a third year as a team option.

The better and more in demand players are, the more bargaining power they have and the less concessions they will accept in contracts. They want guaranteed money and certainly don't want one-sided contract demands such as the team having an option to keep them or not (but the same not applying in reverse).

This is the crux of moving to a different model. You can't make it less appealing to players than the status quo and expect players to be on board with it. I also don't think you can move forward with anything that doesn't have the support of the players.

BH, This seems to be a form of madness, we want guys to go out there and put in a huge effort every game BUT if they don't they still get a guaranteed income. Try doing that in any competitive International organisation.
The match bonus should be 40-50% of what they are paid. No incentive no effort...

 

[Adam84]

There is a small win bonus attached to the Wallaby match payments these days I beleive, but I don't think it would make much of a difference one way or another.

Like others have said, I don't think there is the interest for player level sponsorship.

The Rebels/Brumbies/Tahs are barely getting $1m sponsorship levels for the entire team as it is. (Reds do a lot better than this to their credit)

And as with most things in rugby.au, most organisations with big $$$ are only interested in sponsoring the Wallabies

Those teams are getting a lot more then $1million

Tahs: $3.2million(2023)
Brumbies: $4.5million(2022)
Reds: $6.6million(2023)

Rebels/Force unknown.

 

[stillmissit]

Problem is that the current money being shelled out to players means Australian rugby loses money hand over fist

It would at least make sense if the top players here made any tangible difference on the field to either their Super team or the National team, but they don't even do that. As it stands, the status quo requires supposed top players to be paid with money the ARU doesn't have, in order for our Super sides to never win anything and have the 9th best National team in the world

Something needs to change. Exactly what is up for debate, but the only certain thing is the status quo will lead to the end of Professional rugby in Australia. It's that dire

Totally agreeTomThumb. I wonder if this is where player power took us after McQueens time.

 

[stillmissit]

Those teams are getting a lot more then $1million

Tahs: $3.2million(2023)
Brumbies: $4.5million(2022)
Reds: $6.6million(2023)

Rebels/Force unknown.

God that figure for the Tahs is pathetic! Thanks for this Adam.

 

[Braveheart81]

The match bonus should be 40-50% of what they are paid. No incentive no effort...

That's not how life works. There's a reason the best players in all sports (and in any job really) have the most favourable terms in their contracts.

If a significant part of their contracts are not guaranteed then the potential upside there needs to be a lot higher. Otherwise why wouldn't they just go and take guaranteed money elsewhere? When season ending injury is always a significant risk, no player wants to be in a position where they might lose half their earnings because they got injured while working for their employer. The best players certainly don't have to take that risk.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Those teams are getting a lot more then $1million

Tahs: $3.2million(2023)
Brumbies: $4.5million(2022)
Reds: $6.6million(2023)

Rebels/Force unknown.

Thanks Adam. That $1m was a typo!

Rebels were between $2 and $3m over the last three years (from the administrator's report) - and just to add the Waratahs inc have been significantly less than NSWRU whenever we see it split out like in 2022 - $1.6m for tahs)

 

[LeCheese]

BH, This seems to be a form of madness, we want guys to go out there and put in a huge effort every game BUT if they don't they still get a guaranteed income. Try doing that in any competitive International organisation.
The match bonus should be 40-50% of what they are paid. No incentive no effort...

In addition to what @Braveheart81 pointed out, good luck trying to quantify 'effort' and pair it with remuneration in this context.

Do you want to give individual players targets around hitting rucks, scoring tries, try assists, etc.? There's a good chance we'd quickly see players going into business for themselves and approaching the game in a way that boosts their relevant stats (e.g., hitting rucks already won, holding onto the ball instead of passing), as opposed to actually playing the game in front of them. The other option of a coach/staff member subjectively rating a player's 'effort' would likely erode relations between players and professional staff.

Smaller bonuses, match payments, and incentives as we have now, are of course a different story.

 

[Tomthumb]

Quantifying effort isn't really feasible, but incentive based, partially non-guaranteed contracts are essentially what US sports run off (especially contact sports) so I don't know why Australian rugby players should somehow be above it

 

[half]

Great logical thinking Half BUT do we have 4 years? We are going to hit an existential threat if Joe can't lift us off the toilet.

We need to build our amateur(ish) club rugby so that people can play the game without clubs going bankrupt by stupid management. This of course raises the big elephant in the room do young men want to play rugby or just watch it? We already know young women want to play it.

You are right.

Thats why we need the development to begin at the start or before the next Super Rugby media deal, so the revenue from Super Rugby can be used to fund the development of a new system.

One of the key stakeholders is broadcasters, to start a new competition while their existing media deal is in play would be madness in the extreme. The development needs your broadcast partners support not only for the idea but in leaving what they have for something new.

WE are about to entre a new broadcast agreement, and we have a lot to sell with the BL and WC. If was me part of the negations would be with the understanding that a new competition would emerge at the end of this current deal.

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

Quantifying effort isn't really feasible, but incentive based, partially non-guaranteed contracts are essentially what US sports run off (especially contact sports) so I don't know why Australian rugby players should somehow be above it

Might help when their base can still be 1.5m with the potential to earn millions more. Are we going to be saying here's 75k and you might earn 350k if you hit every target....

I'll also add that a lot of the US sports have no genuine option to leave. Even sports like Basketball which are global and you can make good money overseas, you still don't want to if you can be in the NBA. If wer'e talking contact sport like NFL good luck making more than 150k in Canadian Football or NFL Europe....

 

[Adam84]

Thats why we need the development to begin at the start or before the next Super Rugby media deal, so the revenue from Super Rugby can be used to fund the development of a new system.

revenue from Super Rugby doesn't cover Super Rugby let alone have the ability to fund another competition

 

[Tomthumb]

Might help when their base can still be 1.5m with the potential to earn millions more. Are we going to be saying here's 75k and you might earn 350k if you hit every target....

Why not? What model are player contracts amounts based on? Seems to be the powerbrokers just decide how much to pay someone based on a whim as opposed to basing it on their tangible worth

The salary cap and individual contracts in US Sports are directly correlated to the profits made by the competition. Hence why the NHL Salary cap is around $200 mil less than the NBA's

 

[Bullrush]

One of my favourite Jordan clips

 

[The Ghost of Raelene]

Don't you think we'll just have players leave for a guaranteed cheque? No NHL player worth a pinch of shit wants to go play in Russia. NFL player can't go anywhere and make a big pay day.

 

[Adam84]

Quantifying effort isn't really feasible, but incentive based, partially non-guaranteed contracts are essentially what US sports run off (especially contact sports) so I don't know why Australian rugby players should somehow be above it

US sports operate in a different sphere to rugby in Australia...
the minimum wage of NFL is 600% the average salary in the US,
the minimum wage of Super Rugby is 75% the aveage salary in Aus.

It's easy to build in significant bonus clauses when your base contract already guarantees financial stability...