Quade telling it how it is

[Bowside]

What vindictiveness?

Aside from Matt Giteau falling out of favour with the Wallabies and there being much talk about how he was a disruption when not in the starting side, I can't really think of any clear examples where Deans can be accused of being vindictive.

Not picking him "because he wasn't ready", then recalling him the next week after his replacement put in a shockingly bad performance against the all blacks was a bit vindictive.

Deans has a history of poor man management - Quade is not the first player to have problems with him.

 

[cyclopath]

I'm still working out how the NSWRU and the Waratahs became part of this latest twist.
This has become the thread at the end of the Universe.

 

[gel]

What vindictiveness?

Aside from Matt Giteau falling out of favour with the Wallabies and there being much talk about how he was a disruption when not in the starting side, I can't really think of any clear examples where Deans can be accused of being vindictive.

the posts you are reading and replying to...

^^^ Post 1772.

Whether QC (Quade Cooper) gets game time in future tests will be largely dependent on Dingo Deans, who according to many posters has a long memory and a vindictive mean streak, and recent events haven't exactly endeared QC (Quade Cooper) to Dingo.

If Dingo stays in charge of team Wobboley, QC (Quade Cooper) may have to get the trains running on time in Sydney, and restore healthy flows to the Murray Darling System AND the Snowy River without impacting on storage levels in The Snowy Hydro Scheme, Cubby Station and the Menindee Lakes, as well as reconciling if he will ever deem a yellow jumper bearable to don again before he is selected in the run-on Test squad. We all know if he is selected on the bench that he will most likely get Buckleys time on field.

If Dingo goes, then QC (Quade Cooper) may get his hands on some decent match payments and winners bonuses, if his form improves.

^^^ How about if I remove getting QC (Quade Cooper) to solve the Inland Waters challenge and replace it with successfully designing the 2013 Australia's America's Cup winning AC72 catamaran?

Bottom line, if Dingo stays at the Helm of SS Wallaby, then QC (Quade Cooper) will need to complete the modern Tasks of Hercules before he is given any inside running from him. Either that or 3/4 of the team does a Bradbury and leaves Dingo with no other choice.

 

[Braveheart81]

I'm torn. It is nice to see the ARU man up and finally deliver a genuine punishment to one of the Britney Brigade, but on the surface it appears quite harsh and was akin to killing a fly with a sledgehammer.

In the end, QC (Quade Cooper) is an excitement machine and is an asset to the game of Rugby in Australia. I would have thought a contract to the value of 65% of his last contract would have made the point and allowed Quade to save a bit of face.

I don't think you can look at QC (Quade Cooper)'s contract in isolation. Whilst I agree with you that if there was an unlimited number of contracts and money available then a new contract at 65% of his last one would have been a fine outcome.

The reality is that contracts are limited and offering one person a contract means another misses out.

After playing one test in 2012 and everything else that has gone on, it doesn't surprise me that Quade Cooper is no longer in the 32 most valued members of the Wallabies (or whatever the number is).

 

[Scarfman]

10 pages to go, boys. Stay strong, believe, and we'll get there.

 

[Scotty]

I'm still working out how the NSWRU and the Waratahs became part of this latest twist.
This has become the thread at the end of the Universe.

Was it that hard a question to answer?

Thought I had to put it in NSW terms for some of you blokes to get some perspective.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

^^^ Post 1785 Scarfman, Given todays article in The Australian Newspaper, there is nothing surer.

The thread had hit a bit of a wall, and that material should provide just the extra motivation at the right time to punch on through to the objective.

 

[Scotty]

I don't think you can look at QC (Quade Cooper)'s contract in isolation. Whilst I agree with you that if there was an unlimited number of contracts and money available then a new contract at 65% of his last one would have been a fine outcome.

The reality is that contracts are limited and offering one person a contract means another misses out.

After playing one test in 2012 and everything else that has gone on, it doesn't surprise me that Quade Cooper is no longer in the 32 most valued members of the Wallabies (or whatever the number is).

Is there a set number? I don't recall hearing one.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

This announcement may put paid to any chance of getting to hear QC (Quade Cooper) (and his side of the story) on the G&GR podslam for a while.

 

[cyclopath]

Was it that hard a question to answer?

Thought I had to put it in NSW terms for some of you blokes to get some perspective.

I don't think it would be a stretch to assume that the waratahs have benefitted more than any other state when it comes to player's top ups.

Should they have a limit because they don't affect WA or Vic? Or does a strong NSWRU translate to rugby being stronger in Australia?

Don't forget that the aru have just received a report where they have agreed with a recommendation that they should be seen as 'keepers of the game'. This means doing what is reasonable to grow the game at all levels and there is no doubt that QC (Quade Cooper) has been a big part of this in Qld particularly.

Right, crystal clear now, thanks for that Scotty. I would wager I'm probably not the most dense person on this forum, but I can't quite join all your dots. Sorry.

 

[Braveheart81]

Is there a set number? I don't recall hearing one.

From a foxsports.com.au article in April when the system was changed.

Wallabies who are ranked among the top 32 players in the country will be eligible for top-ups, but their franchises will not be aware of what the top-up is worth and therefore must front up with big cash.​

http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/s...chise-deal-first/story-e6frf4qu-1226319396436

 

[gel]

Of those 32 top up contracts, how many have been finalised for next season? Has that been announced yet?

Given they frigged around with Higger's forever and are still frigging around with Genia's I presume this is the same for all 32 still? I do remember that they removed the finger twins top ups entirely (and then proceeded to pick them in the 30 man squads from some reason).

 

[Braveheart81]

I have no idea. Some of the 32 will have signed for more than one year in 2011.

Considering that the contracts for people like Genia and Cooper had been on the table for much of the year it would seem likely that many people have already signed on.

It would seem unlikely that it will ever be public knowledge of exactly who has an ARU top up contract.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Are all the ARU top up contracts the same duration with the same start and finish date?

If they are of different durations, and commensurate with the length of their Super Rugby franchise contracts, then we would be dealing with a whole new level of complexity trying to establish who is in, who is out, who is up for renewal and who is not to be renewed/reviewed for some time in terms of establishing compliance with some maximum number of top up contracts.

 

[Braveheart81]

Are all the ARU top up contracts the same duration with the same start and finish date?

If they are of different durations, and commensurate with the length of their Super Rugby franchise contracts, then we would be dealing with a whole new level of complexity trying to establish who is in, who is out, who is up for renewal and who is not to be renewed/reviewed for some time in terms of establishing compliance with some maximum number of top up contracts.

I know Digby Ioane signed a three year deal last year. I think that was meant to be the end of long Wallaby contracts though.

I'm not sure if everything is now just a single year but I thought that is what they were heading towards. There are still going to be some legacy issues amongst the older contracts like Digby's.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Moving them all to shorter term contracts would be a swings and roundabouts thing.

Generally short duration contracts come at a higher rate due to the greater risk being carried by the athlete/provider of having to renegotiate at years (contracts) end.

An athlete on a longer term contract can afford to offer a "discount" over the short term contracted athlete due to the guarantee of payments over the long term.

There is a fair amount of risk transferred to the ARU in this instance in that they may be left having to continue to pay a fair amount of drinking tokens to an out of form player while the contract runs its term.

It may be false economies for the ARU, with many athletes looking to opportunities on the other side of the equator earlier than would usually be the case.

 

[Braveheart81]

It is a tough thing to balance.

We don't want people on Wallaby contracts who have been surpassed and are no longer pushing for selection in the matchday 22.

We also don't want people contracted who are completely crocked. I am fairly sure Elsom and Vickerman were still being paid by the ARU in 2012 which should not be the case (nothing against those guys but clearly they shouldn't be getting paid to be part of the Wallabies when they can't even play rugby).

I definitely think that limited top ups and a strong focus on match payments is the best answer. Whilst it doesn't provide the guarantees that some players may seek to keep them in Australia it makes everyone hungry to play for the Wallabies. If a player decides that a cushy foreign contract is more desirable than seeking Wallaby match payments then we could probably do without them.

 

[Slim 293]

I don't think you can look at QC (Quade Cooper)'s contract in isolation. Whilst I agree with you that if there was an unlimited number of contracts and money available then a new contract at 65% of his last one would have been a fine outcome.

The reality is that contracts are limited and offering one person a contract means another misses out.

After playing one test in 2012 and everything else that has gone on, it doesn't surprise me that Quade Cooper is no longer in the 32 most valued members of the Wallabies (or whatever the number is).

Yep, and on top of all that he's now got strong competition for the Wallaby 10 jersey.

There would be those in the coaching group and ARU looking at a player like Lealiifano thinking "Geez, he creates attacking opportunities, kicks goals AND can tackle.........."

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Like many I am a little bemused by twitter, facebook and some of the other social media stuff out there, preferring to have others do all the filtering of all the inane to find the real gems from the twitterverse.

Obviously there are no more "the Wobs are toxic" twitterings coming from QC (Quade Cooper). My question is ignoring the obvious, have recent events changed the content or frequency of the twitterings from QC (Quade Cooper)?

Any tweats in response to the ARU offer? I sincerely hope that he has learned to be a little more discrete if he is.

 

[en_force_er]

Following that argument there is no way that Nick Phipps deserves a contract either. His wallaby form has varied between poor and embarrassing.

The fact that the bloke continues to not only be picked to start each game but play 80 minutes is a reflection of how poorly the team and selection process is managed.

How do you figure? This week Phipps threw one howler of a pass but was solid other than that, tackled well, and did the lion's share of the work for the decisive try.

He's never brought controversy to the ARU's doorstep (Quade has multiple times) and he's not been billed as a first choice starter like Quade is. Despite all of this I doubt he'd be being paid much more than Quade has been offered anyway.

Let's remember, if Quade plays the Lion's tour he will make PLENTY of money. If he doesn't he proves his incentive based contract correct.

It's a win-win for the ARU and not for Quade, a man that they no doubt look at as a necessary nuisance.