• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Australia's Unique Player Contracting System

Status
Not open for further replies.

RedsHappy

Tony Shaw (54)
This article highlights a number of issues with our 'innovative' and 'unique' multi-layered new player contracting system, linked as it is to further complexities with the RUPA and the Collective Bargaining Agreement and generally reduced squad numbers on ARU-enforced cost cutting grounds.
New contracting regime annoys rugby stars
7 MAY 2012, 7:04 PM - AAP

While Wycliff Palu has re-signed with the Wallabies and Waratahs, Test flanker Scott Higginbotham is frustrated by the ARU's new contracting regime.
Wallabies flanker Scott Higginbotham has voiced his frustration at Australian rugby's new contracting regime which has been complicated by the cloud over a proposed Super Rugby salary cap.

While fellow Test back-rower Wycliff Palu knocked back a lucrative Japanese offer on Monday to re-sign with the Australian Rugby Union, Higginbotham is annoyed by a process which is leaving more players in limbo.

Despite playing in a 15-team competition where 10 foreign teams aren't restricted by a salary cap, Australia's Super Rugby teams have been told they must adhere to the equalisation measure once a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA) is finalised.

But negotiations between the ARU and the Rugby Union Players Association (RUPA) over the CBA have hit a major speedbump and the cap amount remains undetermined.

RUPA wants to see a cap of $4.8 million but if the two bodies don't agree on the ever-lingering CBA, the figure will stand at $4.1 million in 2013 and reduce to $3.9 million in 2014.

However if the CBA, first ratified in 2004, rolls over, a cap technically can't be enforced, while it also won't apply to the privately-owned Melbourne Rebels.

In a bid to rein in its spending, the Australian Rugby Union has also decentralised its contracting system with less players given national top-up deals.

Top-up offers are now made after players negotiate with the provinces first, whereas in the past it was the reverse where negotiations started at a national level and Super Rugby contracts were even across the board, apart from third-party deals.

Now top-line players are agreeing to offers from their province on the proviso they receive the top-up they expect from the ARU, prompting players to then look overseas or interstate when it's not forthcoming.

That's the situation that Higginbotham, among others, has been left in following positive discussions with Queensland before starting negotiations with the ARU last month.

Although the in-form 25-year-old is now rated ahead of former Test skipper Rocky Elsom as Australia's best No.6, he's currently weighing up interest overseas and interstate.

The 25-year-old admitted his frustration at the new system as he flew back into Brisbane on Monday morning following the Reds' 15-11 loss to the Crusaders.

"I'm definitely frustrated by it, what player's not?" he said. "It (contract negotiations) is a tough thing to go through. It's not the most enjoyable time, especially when you just want to do your job.

"It's all pretty complicated and it's hard to sort stuff out when you don't have a guarantee with the ARU, but it's always tough."

While it was last week reported he'd agreed to a new two-year deal with Queensland, Higginbotham denied he'd agreed on anything.

"I obviously want to stay in Queensland," he said. "But it's just a process of going back and forth with my manager and I'm trying to stay out of it as much as I can."
 

p.Tah

John Thornett (49)
I understand it's a complex process but the system is designed to contain spending. I think the ARU are being smart to ensure the franchises and the ARU don't go broke. That is the last thing Australia or SANZAR needs.

Genuine question: Anyone have any ideas on a better method that will also ensure we don't live beyond our means?
 

Moses

Simon Poidevin (60)
Staff member
If it's possible to ask this question without getting into a debate on the relative merits of Higgers vs other 6/8s, the statement "Although the in-form 25-year-old is now rated ahead of former Test skipper Rocky Elsom as Australia's best No.6".

Is this Robbie's opinion? Or just the authors' opinion stated as fact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BPC

Moses

Simon Poidevin (60)
Staff member
As to the point of the article, the whole idea of artificially handicapping our sides through quotas and salary caps is insane.

Especially when we're imposing these restrictions on the privately owned Rebels, who cares if they spend more to get better players?
 

Gnostic

Mark Ella (57)
Number 1 would be not to sign injured players who haven't played for two years.
Number 2 would be a simple contact of retainers and incentives for selection in squad then 22. No large contact fee just reward for performance an actually getting selected. That way the retainer will ensure that a large base of players can up there Super Rugby income and be available for national selection while rewarding those who get selected.
Number 3 would be actually selecting players on displayed form.
 

Gnostic

Mark Ella (57)
If it's possible to ask this question without getting into a debate on the relative merits of Higgers vs other 6/8s, the statement "Although the in-form 25-year-old is now rated ahead of former Test skipper Rocky Elsom as Australia's best No.6".

Is this Robbie's opinion? Or just the authors' opinion stated as fact.
Surely a player who has played nearly all over every game would be rated ahead of a player who wouldn't have played 80 minutes in two seasons total.
 

Melbourne Terrace

Darby Loudon (17)
the whole thing is stupid, you complain about players leaving for europe and japan and yet put these stupid restrictions on the teams. rebels are privately owned and in a salary cap free competition should be free to spend money on whoever. just because other teams are too povo to pay up shouldn't mean the strong ones should suffer. if they want to be on the same scale then they should put their team up for private ownership.
 

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
I understand it's a complex process but the system is designed to contain spending. I think the ARU are being smart to ensure the franchises and the ARU don't go broke. That is the last thing Australia or SANZAR needs.

Genuine question: Anyone have any ideas on a better method that will also ensure we don't live beyond our means?


Central contracting with ARU having the power to direct players to provinces - except I wouldn't trust the ARU to do it fairly or properly.
Either that or they get rid of this stupid top up and give the money to the provinces.
This isn't just about an ARU fear of lack self control among the provinces it is about the ARU retaining/gaining control.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

Shiggins

Simon Poidevin (60)
If it's possible to ask this question without getting into a debate on the relative merits of Higgers vs other 6/8s, the statement "Although the in-form 25-year-old is now rated ahead of former Test skipper Rocky Elsom as Australia's best No.6".

Is this Robbie's opinion? Or just the authors' opinion stated as fact.
I would probably have to agree with that quite ATM. He is defiantly the best running 6 followed by Dennis. I used to
Dislike higgers but I'm starting to grow on the bloke. Maybe it's his new hair. Lol


Http://www.youtube.com/shiggins316
 

redstragic

Alan Cameron (40)
I think the situation is insane, if we are going to cap spending on players then do it across the board, Coaches/board/admin staff/ St Leonard's. No way, what a stupid idea I hear the other voice in my head saying.

I does not work because the rest of the comp does not play by these rules. It's not NRL or AFL. We can't go on treating our players like indentured serfs
 

Craig Riddington

Sydney Middleton (9)
I understand it's a complex process but the system is designed to contain spending. I think the ARU are being smart to ensure the franchises and the ARU don't go broke. That is the last thing Australia or SANZAR needs.

Genuine question: Anyone have any ideas on a better method that will also ensure we don't live beyond our means?
Possibly. The Bundesliga? Whereby clubs (franchises) have to submit financials to the league in order to obtain a license to play in that league. The financials are both for the previous year and forthcoming year and are independently audited. Conditions for license approval are forecasted positive liquidity for upcoming season; positive net equity on balance sheet and forecasted net equity for upcoming season. Penalties are fines, loss of points and ultimately, loss of license. The restriction of what you spend on players is the balance sheet. Interestingly, they also have the 50+1 rule of ownership whereby the membership (or assembly, fans etc) have the majority share putting them at the centre of everything the club does.

Of any system, you have to ask whether franchises are competitive and whether it promotes the success of the National team long-term. I can not see how the current system is benefitting Australian teams over NZ and SA teams. You need financial regulation but a salary cap isn't it. Critics of the Bundesliga said that teams would not be able to compete in Inter-Europa competitions and this was certainly true for awhile as other clubs (English) bought their teams. However, they have debt free clubs, a league that is doing well and seeing financial growth, a team in the champions league final and an improving National team. In some instances, other sports might actually be getting things right...even in soccer.

Be kind on my first post - I promise I will never bore you with references to balance sheets and soccer ever again.
 
A

andyq

Guest
Getting things right should never be boring Craig, the other thing the Bundesliga seems to do well is develop youngsters.

I know they have great acadamies at the teams, but I seem to recall that the Natioanl Association also get to choose who plays for their youth squads without interference, unlike other big soccer nations. A bit of German-inspired organisation may not be a terrible thing for the ARU.
 

p.Tah

John Thornett (49)
Welcome Craig. Good post. I wasn't aware of the Bundesliga model. My only comment relates to the license.
Conditions for license approval are forecasted positive liquidity for upcoming season; positive net equity on balance sheet and forecasted net equity for upcoming season. Penalties are fines, loss of points and ultimately, loss of license.
I presume all teams would have to be privatized (or separated from the Union as the Tahs are). If the license is revoked, who would it go to? Do they need to find another investor or would we drop down to 4 teams in Australia.
 

Bardon

Peter Fenwicke (45)
That's what happened to Aironi, the Italian Federation revoked their license over financial issues so they wont have regional status and wont compete in the Pro12 or HEC anymore. Italians are yet to announce who will take their spot. But I'd be pretty pissed if I was a fan of Aironi, it's hard to see those fans just hopping to whatever team replaces them.
 

Craig Riddington

Sydney Middleton (9)
Cheers.

The Bundesliga model views clubs a bit like the banks in that there is a dangerous incentive (the team performance) to over invest and take too many risks. Add to this the belief that clubs are too 'prominent' to fail, then, without financial regulation, clubs will be tempted to spend on players beyond their means, hope that success brings revenue and if it does n't, well what the heck, someone will come in and bail us out. So the licence is there to show that you have got your house in order and that your plans for the future are viable. If the system works properly, it shouldn't get to the situation where clubs are in financial difficulties and potentially losing their licence. In the worse case, where a team was in financial strife, it would loose it's licence and it would be dropped or suspended from the league.
No one wants to see any team, let alone your own, to be out of the league. But I'm not sure there is any system that could prevent this anyway when things do go badly wrong...and certainly not the current system. The salary cap won't stop a franchise from getting into financial difficulties and there is only a certain amount of help that will be given, to get a franchise back on its feet again.

As for the ownership, I really don't know enough about how teams are currently owned to be able to answer properly. I would assume, if you wanted similar to the Bundesliga, then you would be looking at least 51 % each team to be owned by it's respective Union and/or membership.

That's pretty crap for the Aironi fans. As Portsmouth (poofball!) fan I can empathise...and it probably explains my keen interest in all this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top