Super Rugby players must be allowed to cross borders and remain eligible for Test sides

[terry j]

an article from brendan cannon espousing something I myself (poorly) argued recently.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/s...des/story-e6frf4qu-1226630944556#.UX0Hxsolsng

Maybe it needs a few tweaks, maybe you would reject it outright.

Who would it benefit most, players, fans or code?

Who would it harm most.

I think it is worth looking at, what do you think?

 

[USARugger]

What if they went somewhere like the Top 14 where the clubs go out of their way to make it as difficult as possible for the international sides to get their players released?

 

[terry j]

I can't recall now exactly what cannon was arguing, but why not just allow it within super rugby? IIRC cannon was arguing SH rugby.

Let's say it was allowed within Super Rugby only, would it benefit Aus if a player learned/experienced another countries 'playing style'? Would it help expand a players game, do countries actually have a different playing style.

My gut feel is that allowing movement within Super Rugby would be a step forward, clearly an improvement for the player (no more any 'restriction of trade' as it were), the Super Rugby games all fall under the same test playing window anyway so no probs with availability (no doubt it would be part of the rules anyway).

About the only problem I could see is if there were lots of money disparity between franchises, and if 'sold to the highest bidder' was the operating basis. I'd hazard that type of thing is a big part of the dominance of the big soccer clubs...they simply buy the best and the rest struggle as a result. I think that needs to be accounted for.

 

[Braveheart81]

There would be no real benefit to the ARU and Wallabies if you allowed Australian players to play for other Super Rugby sides.

The reason to open up the eligibility requirements would be to allow our top players to earn more money but still make sure they can play for the Wallabies. Going to play Super Rugby in NZ or South Africa isn't going to bring more money.

The biggest benefit to our top players would be allowing them to go and play in Japan or part of a northern hemisphere season and still be eligible for the Wallabies.

 

[TOCC]

The only country this would benefit would be New Zealand, Australian teams can offer more to some of their fringe all blacks then they can...

 

[terry j]

BH, is your point because there is 'basically' no difference in the available money between the Super Rugby teams? Ie, the real money is OS.

BC does not seem to address that side of it, instead seems to be arguing from 'lifestyle'. Perhaps your view is one unintended side effect he has not considered. One which, if true, would actually devalue the system for the spectators.

 

[JSRF10]

Australia just doesn't have the player depth to allow its players to play abroad and still be Wallabies. If they want strong franchise then the current rule has to remain in place.

 

[TOCC]

BH, is your point because there is 'basically' no difference in the available money between the Super Rugby teams? Ie, the real money is OS.

BC does not seem to address that side of it, instead seems to be arguing from 'lifestyle'. Perhaps your view is one unintended side effect he has not considered. One which, if true, would actually devalue the system for the spectators.

To me the money issue is the main one... Lets out out a hypothetical and see which of these appeals more to a starting Wallaby currently based in QLD/NSW:

City & Salary:
Dunedin - $350'000
Pretoria - $450'000
Melbourne - $750'000(ARU top-up)
Paris - $1.2milloon
London - $900'000
Tokyo - $1'000'000

A player based in NZ or RSA would still receive match payments for wallabies games but obviously shouldn't be eligible for a top-up salary.



To me, BC didn't think it through, if a player wants a change of scenery he is going to go to somewhere completely different like Tokyo, southern France or London, not Rotorua..

 

[Braveheart81]

BH, is your point because there is 'basically' no difference in the available money between the Super Rugby teams? Ie, the real money is OS.

I think the only reason to change the current eligibility requirements is if Australian rugby no longer becomes competitive in being able to keep most of our top talent exclusively in Australia.

Currently we are able to keep most of our best players in Australia. If the ARU became less competitive with overseas leagues then it could become difficult and we would need to consider letting our players go overseas whilst still playing for the Wallabies and preferably Super Rugby as well.

There is less money available in NZ or South Africa (they also have cheaper costs of living which has some balancing effect).

It's not like Wallabies are going to want to play in NZ or South Africa rather than for an Australian franchise.

 

[jay-c]

our economic position is great now, and will be for several years which means our teams can afford to take the best players now from nz or sa> but sa is a brics economy and given time they will dwalf us meaning we will not be able to compete with them and the best players will end up playing for sa teams.
i think he wanted 5 marquee players per team> that will do way more harm than good>

i guess either way nz teams cant compete with either us or sa so its probably not such a bad idea

 

[jay-c]

The only country this would benefit would be New Zealand, Australian teams can offer more to some of their fringe all blacks then they can.

nz players would benefit individually> but their teams couldnt afford the best sa or aus players (or many of them) their teams would be the big losers> they just dont have the buying power (and wont- probably ever)

 

[USARugger]

SA becoming a dominant economic power is still a very long way off.

 

[jay-c]

they dont have to be that dominant to be able to outbid us thou
weve got a great dollar atm, but all the drivers of that arnt driving as hard as they used to be.. and wont into the future

 

[USARugger]

Australia is still the fastest growing "Western" nation. Your dollar will be strong for a while. SA has serious political and socioeconomical issues to work through to undo the damage done by apartheid. The fact is a huge portion of their citizenship is currently too poor and too marginalized to contribute to their domestic economy in any noticeable way. Their economy will be hamstrung for a very long time while this entire process is reversed, if it ever fully is.

 

[jay-c]

how bout if we still care about this in 10 years we discuss this a bit more when this might be a problem
point i was trying to make is with 50m+ population who dont have the code battle we do it might not be in our interest to give them the ability to buy our best players> we dont even have enough of them to fill our current teams!

 

[Inside Shoulder]

To me the money issue is the main one. Lets out out a hypothetical and see which of these appeals more to a starting Wallaby currently based in QLD/NSW:

City & Salary:
Dunedin - $350'000
Pretoria - $450'000
Melbourne - $750'000(ARU top-up)
Paris - $1.2milloon
London - $900'000
Tokyo - $1'000'000

A player based in NZ or RSA would still receive match payments for wallabies games but obviously shouldn't be eligible for a top-up salary.



To me, BC didn't think it through, if a player wants a change of scenery he is going to go to somewhere completely different like Tokyo, southern France or London, not Rotorua..

Sheesh - Rotorua's pretty different

 

[Rassie]

Australia is still the fastest growing "Western" nation. Your dollar will be strong for a while. SA has serious political and socioeconomical issues to work through to undo the damage done by apartheid. The fact is a huge portion of their citizenship is currently too poor and too marginalized to contribute to their domestic economy in any noticeable way. Their economy will be hamstrung for a very long time while this entire process is reversed, if it ever fully is.

That is not entirely true. In the so called height of apartheid the rand was equal to the dollar at one stage and we were one of the fastest growing economies in the world. We were still in control of most of our minerals as well.

But I think what they mean in terms of Sport and bringing in money as most money come from tv deals we bring in most of the money and we have the bigger viewer totals and company's like Investic is owned by South Africans. Then we have merchandising and the Super Rugby brands which generated over 400 million and that was in 2004. So yes we may have a weaker rand but we still get paid in dollars just like Australia and New Zealand.

Personally I believe if a guy play in Super Rugby he play Super Rugby and why shouldn't he be considered if he performs at that level? Would you rather have a player sit on a bench week in week out or rather let him play every week for another super Rugby franchise all be it a SA or NZ one. Remember the French will always be lurking so will the Japanese with top dollars

As for our economy there is nothing to reverse. Its a self enrichment scheme till the one term is up then will the other come to do the same. After that it will be land grabbings.

 

[gel]

we bring in most of the money

Is this actually true though? That is a serious question, by the way - I am not having a go at all.

The reason I ask is that although the Rand is lower than the Australian dollar, I am fully aware that there are waaaaay more fans over in SA than in Australia which means greater viewers... But:

What do SA companies pay for advertising on SA cable television? What do SA companies pay for corporate advertising/sponsorships/associated corporate functions with the clubs etc. I don't know the numbers on those things, but I would imagine advertisers pay money for what return they think they will get - and in Australia that means the return is probably quite high. Australians are pretty dumb consumers.

The reason I ask is that if advertising in Australia is anything like the rest of things to purchase in Australia, then it is ridiculously overpriced and expensive and also requires the donation of at least one vital organ. Therefore the TV rights in Australia would be worth a lot of money.

 

[Braveheart81]

I've done a fair bit of looking but I can't find any information regarding what each broadcaster (Supersport, Fox Sports, Sky Television) pays towards the SANZAR TV rights deal.

Pay TV is more expensive in Australia than elsewhere so I'm betting that Fox Sports pays a high price per viewer relative to South Africa in pariticular (which does have easily the highest number of viewers per game).

Gate takings and ground attendances are irrelevant to the equation because each team gets to keep those.

 

[Rassie]

Is this actually true though? That is a serious question, by the way - I am not having a go at all.

The reason I ask is that although the Rand is lower than the Australian dollar, I am fully aware that there are waaaaay more fans over in SA than in Australia which means greater viewers. But:

What do SA companies pay for advertising on SA cable television? What do SA companies pay for corporate advertising/sponsorships/associated corporate functions with the clubs etc. I don't know the numbers on those things, but I would imagine advertisers pay money for what return they think they will get - and in Australia that means the return is probably quite high. Australians are pretty dumb consumers.

The reason I ask is that if advertising in Australia is anything like the rest of things to purchase in Australia, then it is ridiculously overpriced and expensive and also requires the donation of at least one vital organ. Therefore the TV rights in Australia would be worth a lot of money.

Ivestec sponsored the leg of the Aussie leg of the competition once. Investec is owned by a Jewish guy in Randburg.

Did you know who sponsored the Super 10 Competition? Transvaal/Lions put up most of the money so it can happen. Without the Super 10 there would have never been a Super Rugby and also why the ruckus when they were excluded from it.

But coming back to today. How much will people pay for a commercial when 400 000 people are watching compared to a commercial where 1000 000 people are watching. Rand or Aussie Dollars are not the important factor viewer totals are.