Pommy 6 nations extravabonanza

[Gagger]

And people were shocked the pommy players were concerned about what losing games costs them?

from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...s-RFU-offer-1.8-million-Grand-Slam-bonus.html

HOW IT BREAKS DOWN
Each England player in the 22-man squad will receive a match fee of £9,224 per Six Nations match. The win bonus per match for each player in the 22-man squad will be £3,075.
The RFU will also pay a team bonus of £500,000 if England win the Grand Slam. Thus, each player who features in the 22-man squad of all the games in a Grand Slam victory would receive a total of £84,222. The RFU will pay a bonus for £250,000 for the simple defence of the title, worth £72,858 for each player
The England players at the World Cup in New Zealand were paid a tournament fee of £1.25 million — just under £42,000 per player. That figure would have risen by £100,000 if England had won the World Cup

 

[cyclopath]

I wasn't shocked. There seems to be an acceptance of losses by players far more easily than used to be the case. Obviously not all players. But sometimes it seems to me that the paycheck softens the pain of the loss a bit too easily. I know they're professionals etc..., but you only have to watch the shenanigans of Brand JOC (James O'Connor), Khoder Nasser Inc et al to see what motivates the most. So, hardly surprising that losing a bonus predicated upon winning cuts them up more than the fact they lost.

 

[Brumby Jack]

What do they owe if they lose every match?

 

[Gagger]

In the quaint old days we had a bunch a blokes who did it just for the love of it because there were fuck all other reasons to. If you needed the money, or were motivated to play as a profession then you couldn't play rugby and you went to loig or wherever.

Now, we're happy we can pick up more talent, but are then surprised when they're motivated by money - even after we've instituted an incentive based scheme! Without it the top talent just wouldn't be in Union - Quade, JOC (James O'Connor), Beale, Maafu.. etc

I think it's probably us who need to adjust

 

[cyclopath]

I see what you mean. I don't want to go back to amateur days. I just find the platitudes spouted too often by losing players leave me a bit cold. Of course they can care and be well paid. When the pay becomes the dominant factor, the essence of the game is somewhat lost.

 

[p.Tah]

The current incentive scheme for a win gives all players in the squad the same amount regardless of their contribution to the victory. In business most bonuses have parameters included that are not just results based and that are often subjective.

Could the players match bonus be: 50% payable if they win and the other 50% also only paid if they win but measured on other factors that relate to that specific player (I.e. Performance, adherence to game plans etc.) this could ensure that all the players give their all for the whole time they are on the field.

I'm sure the Players Association wouldn't be fond of such a scheme. it would require an independent group to provide player performance review because I'd imagine critics may suggest the governing body may be frugal with their assessment if the coffers were getting low.

Just a thought. I haven't thought it through in depth.

 

[Bardon]

Money can be a motivating factor for some people to do better. But I don't think it's a demotivational factor, not directly at least. Those players that just turn up for the pay cheque would do that if it was £100 or £10,000. I think where it does have an effect is the more some players receive the greater sense of entitlement they have and that leads to the prima donna effect.

If a player is just turning up and not performing, regardless of what is or isn't motivating them, then it's up to head coach/selectors to send out a message that it's not acceptable and drop those players. However when you get a head coach who's too close to the players and wont take the approriate action you end up with a situation like England had at the last WC.

Money is rugby is here to stay. Back in the day players would have crawled over broken glass to get a starting shirt for their country. Those type of players haven't disappeared just from Ireland there's BoD, PoC etc. who would be playing if they got nothing. But these days those players are more important that ever because those type of players are the ones who are going to tell the Ashtons of the world to cop on and focus on the rugby.

Allowing the prima donna crowd to be the dominant player group in any national team should be unacceptable to any union but English rugby just seems to stumble from one disaster to another in recent years.

I think at the moment the money for players in rugby is about right. I don't want to see it get to the level of soccer but I think it's inevitable that it will keep increasing. In many sports once it reaches a critical mass in terms of the money in the game it attracts people with more money. Then those people approach it as a business rather than doing it for the love of the game. That's true of players/coaches and owners of clubs. Then at some stage the money gets so big it becomes more important than the sport.

Rugby isn't quite there yet and is probably at tipping point at the moment and I wouldn't be surprised to see clubs chllenging the power of their unions similar to soccer in the late 80s/early 90s.