So now it's $500k a season not $850k/season....I wonder who released the larger figure? His manager perhaps....
Guys, the ARU needs QC (Quade Cooper) in rugby far more than QC (Quade Cooper) needs the ARU. And increasing his pay given this talent and fan power is a perfectly legitimate objective for him, and one which 90% of modern, professionally advised players would pursue in his circumstances, and with his proven talent on the big stage. Anyone who thinks that the ARU player deal-makers don't need squeezing by the media is just kidding themselves. This is partly the way 'fair market price' is ascertained in today's affluent team sports. Those that don't like or get this process need to better understand the way in which elite sports people build wealth today in areas where they have competitive choices. If your purist tendencies think all this is too grubby and 'beneath the fine virtues of responsible rugby players', let's have a salary cap model like league. That will do very nicely to make the slowly melting glacier that is Australia's rugby disappear even faster than it inexorably is today.
Let's first look at the economics of a Cooper-driven gate P&L:
- Cooper has serious star power in the game, just like Campo would in 2010. He dazzles, he innovates, he's a major point-of-difference points-making man, he makes us gasp and be thrilled with enjoyment when really on song. He makes an Aussie back line look good, and, unquestionably, a dynamic running game is what Aussie fans love (and years of league and AFL on TV has made this even more so and more essential in our rugby, if we want to compete with these codes, as we must). Fact. He has human faults and maturing to do, like any 22 year old with much more exposure than they are ready for. The Wallabies desperately need star players that actively pull crowds, whatever the purists care to think. How many do we have: Pocock (though forwards count for less as they don't dynamise the backs, visibly and directly anyway), Genia, Cooper, that's about it. Roughly 4 or so less than we ideally should have today. (Beale and JO'C could become genuine crowd pullers when they really consolidate and improve further, and Davies and Chambers and MacCabe may be candidates in time, Ioane is about 3.75 stars to QC (Quade Cooper)'s 5.)
- Here's the cash flow maths: conservatively, a people puller like Cooper will increment home S15 and Wallabies gate takings by a minimum of 3,000 heads per game. Let's say 10 games per year: 30,000 incremental tickets. Let's assume $60 per head plus say $10 gross profit on drinks, snacks, etc. That's $2,100,000. Next, sponsorship. Sponsors adore players that drive up TV ratings. Cooper will surely do that to some degree. His incremental sponsor power, or hold-sponsor power, would be at least $300,000 pa, very conservatively. Then there's the intangibles of what he contributes to potential wins and general 'Wallaby aura', let's not monetise that for now. So, it's reasonably- to highly- likely that QC (Quade Cooper) will produce _incremental_ income to the code of approx no less than $2,400,000. Say we pay QC (Quade Cooper) $600,000 pa, he's a near guaranteed net profit and cash flow generator for Australian rugby.
Now, to the Wallabies win-ability factors:
Roll forward: QC (Quade Cooper) is now with league, fell out over, say, an extra $250,000 pa. Who will be #10 for the Wallabies? We have, of senior class and blooded,....ummm, the unmovable icon (near universally voted against for this position on GAGR)....and the stressed, clearly anxious and erratic Barnes (somewhat better than UI but not by much that we can rely on, game in, game out). OK, let's take Barnes. Now, how do we feel about having lost Cooper for, say, an incremental $200,000 - $300,000 pa? All those who cling to the hope of a moment of glory (and what other immediate hope is there post-Christchurch) at Eden Park '11: happy, are we? Is there any doubt that a QC (Quade Cooper) (especially with an in-form Genia) materially aids our chance of an in-the-Final loss or win there?, I don't think there's a scintilla of doubt about that. Let's say we keep roughly where we today with RD and the hapless Williams and Graham, i.e., a few little token wins, more losses, and we lose badly at the RWC. Such a long burn of a dreaded outcome - from the utter debacle of Marseilles 2007 to late 2011 - will be nothing short of an unmitigated disaster for everyday fan enthusiasm for rugby in this country, and it's already fragile and declining. The whole period will then be seen as a time of near-permanent decline and inexcusable waste of talent, and IMO could become, in this scenario, an irrevocably negative 'tipping point' for our rugby from which it may simply never recover. Thus, we need to keep every genuinely top player we can until at least 2012, and hopefully longer, even if the $ costs causes some heartburn for the ARU.
Q.E.D. That paying a market price for QC (Quade Cooper) around say $600,000 - $700,000 pa is a smart, strategically well justified act in the interests of the code's survival in this country.
Footnote: The ARU 2009 Annual Report shows 'Office of the CEO' costing c.$3,500,000 pa, JO'N averages around $750,000 pa as salary. Giteau reportedly earns c$1,000,000, and why should QC (Quade Cooper) consider that he should fall way, way below Giteau whose flame has well and truly diminished since 2008 and whom manifestly is no longer up to a playmaker role?
