Australian Rugby / RA

[barbarian]

I think Senator Reynolds may be doing a fair bit of that right now

I doubt it. She's just posturing. No inside sources are going to talk to her, that's for sure.

 

[dru]

That’s not a dig at McKay

YES, it bloody is.

I’d be very happy to run with you on Eales (slime), Kafer (nose too deep in the trough to be taken seriously on anything.) etc.

But you DID take a dig at McKay and you keep doing so. TOCC you have over stretched here and it is devaluing your key message which is very real.

 

[cyclopath]

I am aware some organisations may have it it part of their employment conditions. They also have this weird thing that if they pay you money your considered an employee even of you are contracted. Otherwise you would have no control over the contracted thing so in essence you would be paying money but couldn't direct it to actually do anything.

It appears poor Cyclo in part suffers from this applying:

http://www.apsc.gov.au/publications-and-media/current-publications/making-public-comment

IMHO it hard to find a truly independent Jurno here in Oz when it comes to Rugby as most are entrenched in one camp or part. I also think a good indicator is the ratio of opinion pieces and in other reporting either inside, exclusive or "sources"t hat seem to feature or be key in reports.

McKay does pretty good job but he wont bite the hand that feeds him .

No, I don't really.

 

[GaffaCHinO]

Well following on from the discussion of quality journalism (or lack of) it looks like the ABCs 7:30 report are producing an in-depth piece to be aired either next Wednesday or Thursday. Coincidentally the same day as the next senate hearing. Should be interesting.

 

[jimmydubs]

Numbers can be revealed … ARU top-ups for 2016:

Tahs: $2.60 m

Brum: $1.30 m

Reds: $1.05 m

Force $270 k

Rebs: $120 k

-------------

TOTAL $5.34 m

Cite

Differences aren't 5% here or there. A squad making 150% of the cap versus one making 102%.

What the actual F?
How can we run a "competition" like this?
Forgetting the Tahs ability to turn gold into straw this in all seriousness is a pretty big issue.
I'd be mega pissed if I was a force or rebels supporter

 

[Slim 293]

These are 2016 figures..........

So someone correct me here but the distribution of top ups would've been something like this.........

Tahs $2.6m - TPN, Kepu, Skelton, Mumm, Hooper, Phipps, Foley, Beale, Horne, Folau

Brumbies $1.3m - Sio, Moore, Fardy, Pocock, To'omua, Kuridrani, Speight, Tomane

Reds $1.05m - Slipper, Simmons, Douglas, K Hunt (uncapped)

Rebels $270k - McMahon, T Smith?

Force $120k - McCalman

 

[Sully]

What the actual F?
How can we run a "competition" like this?
Forgetting the Tahs ability to turn gold into straw this in all seriousness is a pretty big issue.
I'd be mega pissed if I was a force or rebels supporter

Oh They're pissed all right.

 

[BLR]

I'd be mega pissed if I was a force or rebels supporter

Big time, as a Force supporter we mostly had complete lack of additional funding at all so got used to having to develop and stick by talent meaning we have foundation players still 12 years down the line.

Then players have to wait a few years for top up funding, with some of them just moving away as they can get much better cash elsewhere.

All the while there always seem to be a few players selected despite being consistently out of form who still get top ups.

It makes no sense and rewards mediocrity. It works on the foundation of CEO's who get paid bonus's even when profits go down.

 

[Slim 293]

What the actual F?
How can we run a "competition" like this?
Forgetting the Tahs ability to turn gold into straw this in all seriousness is a pretty big issue.
I'd be mega pissed if I was a force or rebels supporter

Yeah, but the Force received plenty more this year, and the Rebels's top ups will skyrocket in 2018............

 

[jimmydubs]

Yeah, but the Force received plenty more this year, and the Rebels's top ups will skyrocket in 2018....

Who else did the Force havr topped up this year? TPN?
True Genia will bump the rebels big in % terms but we're still looking at half a topped team of Tahs aren't we.

You can see where the accusations of bias come in.

 

[Slim 293]

Who else did the Force havr topped up this year? TPN?
True Genia will bump the rebels big in % terms but we're still looking at half a topped team of Tahs aren't we.

You can see where the accusations of bias come in.

Coleman and DHP both received bumps this year.......... And the Rebels will benefit from those guys coming over, plus Hodge...... and Naivalu and Korobeite will probably receive top ups in the not too distant future (or is Korobeite already getting extra for the PR?).
I'm not sure if I can buy into the bias accusations........ The Force lacked top up bonuses because they weren't producing Wallabies......... until the past year

 

[BLR]

I'm not sure if I can buy into the bias accusations.... The Force lacked top up bonuses because they weren't producing Wallabies... until the past year

The problem is, like I mentioned, the way the top up system seemed to work is that once you got one you got one, so a whole bunch of under performing players would get top ups and continue to get starts for the Wallabies, you'd think because of the top ups they were getting.

It just narrows the pool of players that will eventually get to the Wallabies as you're more likely to stick with the players you are paying the top ups to than to give a promising youngster a punt.

 

[Braveheart81]

Braveheart where are you?
Duality Derpus - see any duality here?
Prod prod, pour gasoline etc

Of those 2016 Waratahs top ups, 1 went to the Force and 2 went overseas for the 2017 season.

One additional one was gained in Kepu returning.

I just don't see the situation changing. Players will play at the teams they want to play at and the ARU will offer contracts to the key players they want playing in Australia.

If a team wants to recruit a star player they will need to offer more money than their preferred team. The ARU dollars involved won't change.

It's not a level playing field but it is what it is. The ARU are not going to risk retaining key Wallabies to try and level the playing field for the four Super Rugby teams.




Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[TOCC]

I don’t buy Into that argument that it would risk retaining wallabies.. that would apply to such a small percentage of the overall playing group and isn’t a justifiable reason to continue the inequalities of talent equalisation.

Genia is moving to the Rebel’s, Simmons is moving to the Waratahs, Folau has recently played in Melbourne, Pocock has shifted teams in the past so have Wallabies like Beale, JOC (James O'Connor), AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), Mitchell, Giteau, Sharpe, Barnes..

Teams having a roster valued at 50% greater then other teams in the conference isn’t good for competiton..




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[jimmydubs]

I tend to think Tahs fans wouldn't be so shoulder shruggingly ambivalent if their team was the one that had 270k of topups and then got das boot.

The rest of the argument boils down to Sydney is great and everyone wants to play there so we deserve to have an effective player wage 50% higher. It's cart before horse reverse boulderdash logic. If you equalised the field and Perth and Melbourne had more money to spend then the talent would go there. Genia going to the rebels is case in point. Wanted Reds, no cash went to rebels. If you had an equal playing field (or even arguably 10% more at 'remote' locations) this would happen more.

The "is what it is" view is pretty short-sighted for mine.

 

[Slim 293]

If you equalised the field and Perth and Melbourne had more money to spend then the talent would go there.

They all have the same money to spend........

 

[Braveheart81]

I tend to think Tahs fans wouldn't be so shoulder shruggingly ambivalent if their team was the one that had 270k of topups and then got das boot.

The rest of the argument boils down to Sydney is great and everyone wants to play there so we deserve to have an effective player wage 50% higher. It's cart before horse reverse boulderdash logic. If you equalised the field and Perth and Melbourne had more money to spend then the talent would go there. Genia going to the rebels is case in point. Wanted Reds, no cash went to rebels. If you had an equal playing field (or even arguably 10% more at 'remote' locations) this would happen more.

The "is what it is" view is pretty short-sighted for mine.

In terms of Genia, the cash was still there from the ARU and he wanted to play at the Reds but they couldn't afford him based on the halfbacks they already had signed.

Likewise for Simmons he had ARU money already but the Reds were committed to other locks so didn't find the dollars to re-sign him.

I don't think the ARU is about to change their policy. Let's say James Slipper's contract ends and the ARU want to re-sign him. I don't think they're ever going to do that only on the proviso that they switch to a team with less contracted Wallabies.

The teams from the traditional rugby states will continue to have an advantage because more of the players are from there originally and that location will be their preferred team.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[TOCC]

You know what he means.. equalisation measures don’t necessarily mean the money has to come from the Super Rugby teams..

ARU can still maintain top-up, but they could place a cap on the value of top-ups each team can sign. Throw in a few concessions for locally produced players and the like.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Killer]

It's around the wrong way therefore exacerbates the inequality.
The new teams should have some of those available top up dollars allocated to them to try and be competitive thus strengthening the whole competition ala AFL.
QLD and NSW would still in most cases have the first choices, they just wouldn't have all the choices.
We wouldn't be in such a potentially dark place if we had a somewhat fairer system imo.

 

[cyclopath]

It's around the wrong way therefore exacerbates the inequality.
The new teams should have some of those available top up dollars allocated to them to try and be competitive thus strengthening the whole competition ala AFL.
QLD and NSW would still in most cases have the first choices, they just wouldn't have all the choices.
We wouldn't be in such a potentially dark place if we had a somewhat fairer system imo.

True, but the AFL analogy is a little flawed in that the players don't really have another pathway to play if they don't like it. Aus rugby has been leaking players OS so it's a bit more complex. Less likely to try and hard-ball the players to go to X or Y team. But I agree, it has hardly been a fair or transparent system by which top-ups are allocated, both in terms of who gets them, and where they will / should play.