Central Contracts

[Scotty]

Several times every year (and almost every week after a RWC) we have to go through media reports of ARU contract negotiations with leaks from both the ARU and player managers. It gets a little tiring. One of the main issues appears to be the top-up from the ARU and the amount thereof. It makes the negotiation process much more difficult, as it is often then between three parties (and sometimes four parties if private sponsors come in). There must be a better way for the ARU to distribute money to the top players?

I see two options:

1. A significant portion of their 'top-up' money, be given directly to the states, so that they can negotiate their own player salaries. This would also in effect even out the talent between the 5 provinces. In addition to this, pay players that are involved in the wallaby squads (using the remainder of the top-up funds). Each week you are involved in a squad you get X $, in addition to increasing the match day payments to starting and bench players.

2. Centrally contract a number of players each year, similar to the ACB contracts. Say 40 players get on the list each year, on similar scale to the cricketers. Also add in player payments (so players from outside the list that get wallaby games still get paid additional money). The down side of this would be the ability to centrally contract code defectors (you couldn't really put them on the list before they'd played for the wallabies).

I'd like to see option 1 taken up, but are there any other ways to simplify this process?

 

[#1 Tah]

$11,500 is being thrown at every player for the garbage we see on saturday nights. I suggest:

$11,500 per win
$0 per loss.

 

[fatprop]

Several times every year (and almost every week after a RWC) we have to go through media reports of ARU contract negotiations with leaks from both the ARU and player managers. It gets a little tiring. One of the main issues appears to be the top-up from the ARU and the amount thereof. It makes the negotiation process much more difficult, as it is often then between three parties (and sometimes four parties if private sponsors come in). There must be a better way for the ARU to distribute money to the top players?

I see two options:

1. A significant portion of their 'top-up' money, be given directly to the states, so that they can negotiate their own player salaries. This would also in effect even out the talent between the 5 provinces. In addition to this, pay players that are involved in the wallaby squads (using the remainder of the top-up funds). Each week you are involved in a squad you get X $, in addition to increasing the match day payments to starting and bench players.

2. Centrally contract a number of players each year, similar to the ACB contracts. Say 40 players get on the list each year, on similar scale to the cricketers. Also add in player payments (so players from outside the list that get wallaby games still get paid additional money). The down side of this would be the ability to centrally contract code defectors (you couldn't really put them on the list before they'd played for the wallabies).

I'd like to see option 1 taken up, but are there any other ways to simplify this process?

That is the basic system the ARU has in place, Cooper is "insulted" about his ARU contract, otherwise the his manager thinks he is worth more.

 

[Scotty]

Yes, but the difference to the ACB, is that for the ACB there is a set number of players getting the central contract (25) and I understand it is reviewed each year, where as with the ARU there is no set number of players and they only review when a player's contract is up.

 

[TOCC]

Its a difficult situation, ultimately i would love to think that there was a better way of sorting out the contract, but every way has different pros/cons.

If you per-sue option 1, you run the risk of something like this happening:
-you distribute the money to the teams, each team identifies the 5/8 as the most valuable position, each team pays there 5/8's $400'000, across the Aussie Super14 sides this equates to $2million for 5/8's.

 

[Gnostic]

My problem with the whole payments thing is that there is no accountability from the players. In the current teams with have a number of players that have not demonstrably improved skill levels and are in poor form yet they are still taking the big payments.

IMO the best pay system encourages performances:-

1) Retainer equivalent to S15 level payments for squad players
2) Wallabies selection bonus - get into squad
3) Wallabies 22 bonus
4) Win/Loss bonus
5) Skills/Improvement bonus

The coaching staff must also be put on this system.

The current system has seen mediocrity entrenched in members of this team and they are paid like Public Servants, no matter how shitty a job is done you will get paid and those who put in the extra effort do not get extra acknowledgment of that effort. They see some extremely over paid senior members getting selected week after week without ever producing results or improving their skill set and what example does that set apart from let m get some of that cake.

 

[Scotty]

Its a difficult situation, ultimately i would love to think that there was a better way of sorting out the contract, but every way has different pros/cons.

If you per-sue option 1, you run the risk of something like this happening:
-you distribute the money to the teams, each team identifies the 5/8 as the most valuable position, each team pays there 5/8's $400'000, across the Aussie Super14 sides this equates to $2million for 5/8's.

I doubt that a team would be paying 400k for 5/8 if they are mediocre. Each of the teams having the same amount of money (excluding 3rd party deals) would help even out the talent in the provincial sides. You are less likely to get the situation of Giteau and Lealiifano playing in the same side.

We have to run the provincial sides like professional clubs to future the game in oz. This isn't really being done at this stage, and part of this is their limited ability to negotiate their own player's salaries.

 

[H...]

My problem with the whole payments thing is that there is no accountability from the players. In the current teams with have a number of players that have not demonstrably improved skill levels and are in poor form yet they are still taking the big payments.

IMO the best pay system encourages performances:-

1) Retainer equivalent to S15 level payments for squad players
2) Wallabies selection bonus - get into squad
3) Wallabies 22 bonus
4) Win/Loss bonus
5) Skills/Improvement bonus

The coaching staff must also be put on this system.

The current system has seen mediocrity entrenched in members of this team and they are paid like Public Servants, no matter how shitty a job is done you will get paid and those who put in the extra effort do not get extra acknowledgment of that effort. They see some extremely over paid senior members getting selected week after week without ever producing results or improving their skill set and what example does that set apart from let m get some of that cake.

That would work well if there was no competition for our players. But there is. Why would someone accept 200K base with the potential to earn another 400K when the bloke in Toulon will give you 700K just for turning up? The prestige of the jersey is helping us at the moment but there will be a line that players won't cross.

Believe me, I'm not a fan of seeing Giteau get 600 grand to crab across the field either, but I don't know that increasing their performance pay is the way forward.

 

[TOCC]

I doubt that a team would be paying 400k for 5/8 if they are mediocre. Each of the teams having the same amount of money (excluding 3rd party deals) would help even out the talent in the provincial sides. You are less likely to get the situation of Giteau and Lealiifano playing in the same side.

Its not completely unconceivable have that many 5/8's of value, next year in Australia we have Quade Cooper, Berrick Barnes and Danny Cipriani who would all command a sizeable amount.

Either way, it was purely a example of how the system fails, it could apply to any number of positions. The issue is, that through the model you have proposed, it inflates the value of the contracts of some players who are unlikely to contribute much to the wallabies, which means less money for the actual wallaby stars.

Look at the NRL for example, you have players like Scott Prince who is absolutely pivotal to the Titans, but due to the likes of Thurston and Cronk he is unlikely to ever contribute much to QLD or Australia. However, he still commands a quiet comparable salary to these players.

 

[Scotty]

TOCC on your post I have two points:

1. The current system is also flawed when it comes to money going to wallaby 'stars'. A wallaby star could be injured (Alexander), or out of form (Giteau). A wallaby 'star' could be poached from league and never contribute to the wallabies at all (Tahu).

2. If the provincial teams are strong, so will the wallabies be. If there are 4 5/8s that are all very good, then it is only a good thing to keep them all in the country by paying them well (and out of the three you mentioned it is likely that only one will be playing flyhalf). I'm not saying that the states should have all the top up funds (a portion should go to increasing wallaby match payments and introducing squad payments), but the system would seem more simple if the states have control. By giving the states more control we may see less fringe wallabies leave to go overseas.

 

[Scotty]

Oh and on the Scott Prince example, would you suggest if the ARU had three players of comparable talent to Prince, Thurston and Cronk, that they didn't provide top up payments to one of them just because there is another two already? This would risk losing the player to overseas, and then being short one quality player when you needed one. Not to mention the affect he would have on the players around him at club level.

 

[Langthorne]

I recall that before this year's s14 comp I brought up the problem of ARU money being, in effect, allocated unevenly between the Australian s14 teams through the central contracting system. Your option 1 addresses the issue of the uneven distribution, but does not consider that the central contracts are designed to keep players in Australia for the benefit of the Wallabies. Giving a lump sum to the s15 franchises would mean it is spent for their benefit, even if it conflicts with the interests of the Wallabies (particularly true, I suspect, of a privately owned and run Melbourne Rebels).

I think that central contracts should be maintained, with a set scale of payments, and a set number of contracts. I would like to keep our top players in Australia, but not at all costs. At some point the health of the game as a whole has to be considered, and there the always an opportunity cost associated with spending big money on keeping players in Australia (schools and junior competitions, training and development, promotion, introduction of rugby to new areas).

Additional performance based payments should be considered too.

If players do choose to play overseas, I would like for them to still be considered for the Wallabies - but that would require the ARU to lobby the IRB to institute set international windows, and to require players to be released for international duty in those windows.

 

[Gnostic]

I do not want to see overseas players eligible for Oz. If they wish to play Test Rugby they musty play S15. If we pick just one Wallaby from a Euro club for instance few top line players will remain in Oz as they can earn more money with an easier lifestyle in Euro land. Note the easier lifestyle is not about the Rugby but essentially removing the travel component of SANZAR competition.

 

[Scotty]

Langthorne,

I understand your point, but at some stage more focus needs to go on the strength of the super 15 teams in Oz, rather than just the Wallabies. A state based contract system could help this, and you could argue that strong, even state sides will help the wallabies be stronger in the long run.

Rugby in this country will always be limited if the focus is always on the national team. I'm not saying we should reduce the impact of the wallaby brand, but the teams at the next level down have to increase their share of the sporting market for rugby to grow as a sport in Australia. We won't garner a whole lot more fans if all they are watching is 5-6 wallaby games each year - we need them to be watching 18-20 super 15 games plus wallaby matches.

I understand it is a catch 22, with the wallabies providing much of the money for rugby in this country, but IMO that is not sustainable. We need the S15 teams to be self sufficient eventually, and to get there they need to be run professionally with their own contracting systems.

As an aside, does anyone know if the S14 sides receive money directly from the broadcasting deals, or does it all come through the ARU? If it all comes through the ARU, how do the decide what portion of the broadcasting deal is attributed to the S14 and what part to Wallaby matches?

 

[Gnostic]

My understanding is that the all broadcast money is via the ARU and the provinces get equal shares of the pie after the player payments are taken out according to the RUPA agreements. When you take into account the ARU top ups to certain players some provinces obviously get the benefit of more ARU money.