Mowen Considering Move To France Over Pay Dispute
- Thread starter Shiggins
- Start date
- Status
I wasn't having a go at Fotu
Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk 4
Ruggo
Mark Ella (57)
Brumby Jack
Steve Williams (59)
Suffered from blood clots. There's more about it in the Brumbies 2014 thread
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
Do they want to play test Rugby or not. Simple. If they wish to play test Rugby and truly have the profile they can make the rest in endorsements. If they go OS fine, they get what that market is willing to pay.
How is the current system viable in the long term and is it producing a TEAM that gets results? We have discussed ad nauseum regarding Australian Rugby undervaluing front rowers and forward play in general. What I propose may seem socialist in having a straight out rate for all, but it really isn't. It is purely about payment for performance at varying levels. Don't reach that level for whatever reason, don't get paid for it. If that truly results in the "stars" leaving, then to quote what many have said about Mowen - so be it. If they truly value representing the Wallabies and Australia they will stay. If not then no matter how good they are why should they be awarded said jersey if it isn't their top priority. I would suggest strongly that the majority of the players who currently get top ups would still make most of the money they do now. For those who get injured, well they are pretty much in the same boat as the rest of us aren't they, just they have far better medical and support services than any other worker.
Edit - It is also laughable that many people always post about how this is their career and they only have a short playing life etc etc. I am on my third career, the first have been ended by injury which precludes me from many forms of employment. How and why should players of Rugby be different. It should also be noted that in many many cases the post Rugby world for players is a very lucrative one as the players all have a vast number of contacts and associations through which to achieve well paid employment. It is very short sighted to think that an athlete in any sport should simply be able to retire after a working life of 5 to 10 years.
It is what it is
John Solomon (38)
Interesting dilemma with Mowen.
With our best team available, I don't think he gets a start.
I also don't think his value can get any higher to the Wallabies than today.
Maybe the ARU should internally benchmark each player on where they rank for their position against both Australia's and the World's best. That way they won't become distracted by an injury crisis, or the team's results.
It's no good over paying for Mowen right now just because our team is losing, or because he's a fill-in captain, or we are short of better players thru injury etc if he's realistically the 4th best player in Australia and 12th best player in the world for his position.
With our best team available, I don't think he gets a start.
I also don't think his value can get any higher to the Wallabies than today.
Maybe the ARU should internally benchmark each player on where they rank for their position against both Australia's and the World's best. That way they won't become distracted by an injury crisis, or the team's results.
It's no good over paying for Mowen right now just because our team is losing, or because he's a fill-in captain, or we are short of better players thru injury etc if he's realistically the 4th best player in Australia and 12th best player in the world for his position.
terry j
Ron Walden (29)
Yellow, orange or red?
Tarot. Death.
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
As a died-in-the-wool rugby fan, I would value Ben Mowen's contribution far greater than Izzy's. Not only has he generally played better in his position, but he is an important leader and also the nominated lineout caller. It is an unfortunate situation if a player's value is calculated on his box office appeal.
D
daz
Guest
I assume you are not lumping me in that bucket. My postings have been sublimely insightful, and add some much needed value to a thread gone mad.
Richo
John Thornett (49)
Welcome to professional sport.
But even leaving aside the box office issue, there are some good reasons why Mowen does not have an ARU top up. First, he's only been in the Wallabies this year and while he's had a few solid games and captained the side, he's not a sure-fire starter with everyone healthy. Second, he's playing at a very competitive area. Back row has Higgers, Palu, Pocock and Hooper, and then Mowen, Fardy, McCalman, Gill. The ARU has said they'll top up 30 players (or thereabouts, I can't remember the exact number). 8 of them can't be backrowers. Pocock, Hooper and Higgers are surely undisputedly deserving (injuries occurred after contracting). Is Palu topped-up in 2014? That would seem to me to be the larger question.
Palu was signed for a further 2 years in May, so that is one slot gone for the next two years, if he can stay healthy he will be our most capped 8 by the time he finishes his aus career, he has 49 tests already.
He and Higgers will be a strong combination at 8 going forward.
As I said before Mowen is a much, much better 6 than he is an 8, especially under the new scrum rules. With everyone healthy I see him sharing 6 with Fardy (or another) with Pocock playing 80
He and Higgers will be a strong combination at 8 going forward.
As I said before Mowen is a much, much better 6 than he is an 8, especially under the new scrum rules. With everyone healthy I see him sharing 6 with Fardy (or another) with Pocock playing 80
emuarse
Chilla Wilson (44)
I put the following post into the Brumbies 2014 thread, but realised it is probably more appropriate here,
"Back to Ben Mowen.
As Brumbies skipper he'd have to be earning close to $400k there. Plus say 10 games this season with the Wallabies is $140,000. So he is getting over $500k p.a. plus some sponsorships meaning probably $550k to $600K.
His problem (and his manager would know it), is that when Pocock, Higginsbotham, and Palu come back into the side, plus up & coming younger players like Gill & Wil Skelton, then Mowen could be out of the 23 group.
Therefore less game payments. So he's striking while all his planets are aligned. But the ARU would also be aware of the situation, and I can't see them falling over themselves to give Mowen a top up.
In fact, in cases like Mowen's I think the two year top up rule is a good one. If he's good enough, he'll be in the dough. If not, then 'bon voyage', if that's what he chooses to do."
"Back to Ben Mowen.
As Brumbies skipper he'd have to be earning close to $400k there. Plus say 10 games this season with the Wallabies is $140,000. So he is getting over $500k p.a. plus some sponsorships meaning probably $550k to $600K.
His problem (and his manager would know it), is that when Pocock, Higginsbotham, and Palu come back into the side, plus up & coming younger players like Gill & Wil Skelton, then Mowen could be out of the 23 group.
Therefore less game payments. So he's striking while all his planets are aligned. But the ARU would also be aware of the situation, and I can't see them falling over themselves to give Mowen a top up.
In fact, in cases like Mowen's I think the two year top up rule is a good one. If he's good enough, he'll be in the dough. If not, then 'bon voyage', if that's what he chooses to do."
No4918
John Hipwell (52)
I dislike this thinking.
Australian rugby has serious depth issues. If this attitude is given to every fringe wallaby and even half decide to walk then it effects every level - less successin Super Rugby, less fans at games etc. In the inevitable event that 1 or 2 injuries occur in few positions we are looking very thin at national level.
The system needs to reward current form, not form 12-24 months ago.
Scrubber2050
Mark Ella (57)
My understanding is that the ARU "value" a player.
The franchise also values the player's $$$$ and come up with a figure THEY are prepared to pay.
Shortfall is the top-up from the ARU
If the franchise is prepared to pay the value the ARU places on the player then no top-up from the ARU
Very simplistic but I think that is correct ???
Is that rigjht ???
The franchise also values the player's $$$$ and come up with a figure THEY are prepared to pay.
Shortfall is the top-up from the ARU
If the franchise is prepared to pay the value the ARU places on the player then no top-up from the ARU
Very simplistic but I think that is correct ???
Is that rigjht ???
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
In the best of all possible worlds every potential Wallaby would earn more here than he could earn overseas. However, that is clearly impossible.
Given that the ARU's financial resources are limited (which is not their fault, it is just a fact of life - if you want to blame anybody, blame the IRB for not manipulating the Laws of the Game to suit us, or blame the competing codes for being more popular), it is pretty obvious that hard choices will always have to be made.
Only an idiot would argue that, in determining a player's financial value, no account at all should be paid to a player's box office appeal. Yes, the overall box office appeal of the Wallabies is the most important thing, whilever we are winning we are more popular, but creative financial decisions about individual team members are also vitally important.
Hard decisions have to be made. Suck it up, girls.
Given that the ARU's financial resources are limited (which is not their fault, it is just a fact of life - if you want to blame anybody, blame the IRB for not manipulating the Laws of the Game to suit us
, or blame the competing codes for being more popular), it is pretty obvious that hard choices will always have to be made.Only an idiot would argue that, in determining a player's financial value, no account at all should be paid to a player's box office appeal. Yes, the overall box office appeal of the Wallabies is the most important thing, whilever we are winning we are more popular, but creative financial decisions about individual team members are also vitally important.
Hard decisions have to be made. Suck it up, girls.
Ignoto
Peter Sullivan (51)
But what happens to those guys injured whilst playing for the Wallabies or injured whilst playing Super Rugby as an employee of the ARU?
Guys like Pocock, Higgers (and Genia last year) didn't/haven't played for the Wallabies so how is it fair that arguably our best players are unable to recoup their money because of an injury they sustained for the ARU. Current form is rewarded based on match payments. Ben is getting X amount to play every game for the Wallabies, he's just not getting an additional Y amount when not playing.
If you're concerned with rewarding current form, get rid of the top up and increase match payments. But how's that fair on those guys out for 9-10 months?
Scrubber2050
Mark Ella (57)
"Box Office" appeal is important.
when wendell Sailer signed with the Reds it reportedly was for $500K for 3 years. That was huge mioney in the day.
I believe the Reds paid for the contract in the first half of the first season by increased attebndance alone at Ballymore.
Have no problem with the ARU paying Box Office appeal $$$$ to players in the commercial expectation of what that particular signing will bring to rugby
Suppose the stand out Mungos on the top of my list will be SBW (but NZ) and here - Greg Inglis and Jonathon Thurston - there are lots and lots of very good league players but you need absolute stand outs to make it worthwhile (from the commercial perspective)
when wendell Sailer signed with the Reds it reportedly was for $500K for 3 years. That was huge mioney in the day.
I believe the Reds paid for the contract in the first half of the first season by increased attebndance alone at Ballymore.
Have no problem with the ARU paying Box Office appeal $$$$ to players in the commercial expectation of what that particular signing will bring to rugby
Suppose the stand out Mungos on the top of my list will be SBW (but NZ) and here - Greg Inglis and Jonathon Thurston - there are lots and lots of very good league players but you need absolute stand outs to make it worthwhile (from the commercial perspective)
- Status