• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

The Pulverisation of Australian Rugby

Status
Not open for further replies.
nomis

nomis

Herbert Moran (7)
I'm OK with the plan to allow the Force and Rebels to recruit o/s players as a short/medium term plan.

I'd be happier if it were only 5 players each. And I think it needs to be coupled with another (long term) plan to expand the game and develop local depth, with a time-frame to phase out the number of o/s recruitments.

If I could see a detailed longer term plan to fix the pathways and develop depth, I think I'd be a bit more trusting of o/s recruitments as a short-term plan.

As a detailed plan - I want to hear more than just sevens and women's and a club being crowned national champions. I want to see the detailed (proactive) Master Plan - so that we can all have realistic expectations and hold people accountable
 
Rugby Central

Rugby Central

Charlie Fox (21)
There's a lot to get through on this post but purely from a financial stand point wouldn't it be more sensible to remove the ARU top up to contracts, up the match payment and distribute the remaining amounts to the franchises to manage. That way the ARU knows exactly what its player payment expenses will be year-in, year-out.

Players know they actually have to play for the Wallabies to be worth that much and franchises will have deeper pockets to attract/develop talent. This way there's no waste or risk of players getting injured or taking off overseas. All due respect to Pocock, that's a lot of money doing nothing for 2 years. Let the franchises bear the cost so the ARU can look after the rest of the game in Australia.

Have I missed something or is this too simple to work?
 
Gnostic

Gnostic

Mark Ella (57)
It doesn't reward the top players for actually getting selected in the Wallabies and properly incentivise the "workforce" to strive for that.
 
T

TOCC

Guest
Rugby Central said:
There's a lot to get through on this post but purely from a financial stand point wouldn't it be more sensible to remove the ARU top up to contracts, up the match payment and distribute the remaining amounts to the franchises to manage. That way the ARU knows exactly what its player payment expenses will be year-in, year-out.

Players know they actually have to play for the Wallabies to be worth that much and franchises will have deeper pockets to attract/develop talent. This way there's no waste or risk of players getting injured or taking off overseas. All due respect to Pocock, that's a lot of money doing nothing for 2 years. Let the franchises bear the cost so the ARU can look after the rest of the game in Australia.

Have I missed something or is this too simple to work?
Click to expand...

The only issue with incentive based contracts is that a player can't plan ahead as effectively because they might be one injury away from missing out on all the match bonuses, which under this plan would represent a significant proportion of a players income for the year.

As an employer they still need to offer their players financial security so they are able to plan and invest accordingly, otherwise the contracts from overseas which offer a financial guarantee are going to look more and more attractive.

The match day bonus is already a sizeable figure, i don't think they need to increase that any further, i do however support redistributing more of the money to the provinces.
 
Gnostic

Gnostic

Mark Ella (57)
TOCC said:
The only issue with incentive based contracts is that a player can't plan ahead as effectively because they might be one injury away from missing out on all the match bonuses, which under this plan would represent a significant proportion of a players income for the year.

As an employer they still need to offer their players financial security so they are able to plan and invest accordingly, otherwise the contracts from overseas which offer a financial guarantee are going to look more and more attractive.

The match day bonus is already a sizeable figure, i don't think they need to increase that any further, i do however support redistributing more of the money to the provinces.
Click to expand...


Why can't they do what the rest of the community has to and insure themselves against injury. I contract all my labour and if I don't work I don't get paid. Same situation except I don't have the luxury of a playing contract which will give me a baseline income.

I would propose getting rid of the Top up payments altogether and make an extended training squad/camp figure, a flat squad figure and a starting 23 figure. Reward players for effort, form and ability. Given incumbency will always feature in most coaches plans they will have some level of surety but there will also be true competition. It will also get rid of the ridiculous situation where a THP in Oz has next to no chance of earning what a flashy back can but is one of the most important members of the squad. This system will be a great equalizer.
 
cyclopath

cyclopath

George Smith (75)
Staff member
Mark Shields said:
I Agree with inside shoulder, a bit harsh dont you think? What did he do wrong?
Click to expand...
Hi, how are you? You'll excuse me, but generally I don't discuss moderation issues with all and sundry. There was adequate cause, which none of you can now see. And no, I am not telling you what it was.
 
Inside Shoulder

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
cyclopath said:
Hi, how are you? You'll excuse me, but generally I don't discuss moderation issues with all and sundry. There was adequate cause, which none of you can now see. And no, I am not telling you what it was.
Click to expand...

Bugger - I did miss something.
Must have been a corker!
 
Caputo

Caputo

Ted Thorn (20)
Gnostic said:
I will list for you a few players (mainly from Randwick for obvious reasons) that I have seen in the last few years that haven't got a lot of time or much development simply because there is no space for development in Super Rugby squads. These are players with huge talent but just haven't blossomed immediately, they needed more work and more high level game time, in some cases arrived with a roar and then faded to be discarded. If depth was a problem they should be at that next tier.

AJ Gilbert (7)
Selala Lam (6,8,7)
John Fonokofalafi (Hooker)
Clinton Sills (Winger/13)
Lotu Taukeaiho (Prop)

There you go, some aren't recent, as in this year, but that is just off the top of my head in a couple of minutes.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the late reply but could not let this go

AJ Gilbert signed for and was part of the Reds squad in 2008. He was a George Smith lookalike with the dreadlocks, ironically caught up in a crap QLD time behind Roe and Croft and was replaced by Daniel Braid.

Clinton Sills spent at least one year in the Brumbies Academy with a professional contract.

Lam as well was part of the Brumbies Academy. Sometimes when you drop from the Waratahs world you do not fall off the world.

However I believe the Waratahs have taken to shiny and new and discard quickly. Tom Kingston may be one like Mark Gerard.

There is also quite very players who have taken their time to develop and at their third franchise before they broke through.
S. Timani started at Force and Brumbies before blossoming as a Tah.
P. Betham signed from school by Brumbies at the same time as Kurtley Beale and was indifferent at the Rebels but ITM cup now blossomed as a Tah
Ben Mowen - Qld junior 1 Reds game, reasonable at Tah and blossomed Brumbies
Scott Fardy late bloomer.
 
Ted S Hunter

Ted S Hunter

Peter Burge (5)
Sorry folks, have been missing this week with work! This has become quite a solid disucssion and i think the best thing the ARU could do is read this, take notes and try and find which common threads are achievable. It is a belssing to realise that there are signs of life left in terms of developing the rugby pathway in Australia.

Ill leave with some food for thought (sorry for those from QLD this may not mean quite as much to you). Over the weekend, the NSW state rugby championships were won by the following:
U11 - Manly
U12 - Manly
U13 - Not sure here (someone please fill in)
U 14 - Norths
U15 - Gordon
U16 - Warringah
U17 - Manly

Based on these results, and (with the exeption of Manly and to a degree norths), is it the fault of the clubs senior/junior admistrators who are missing the link between juniors and seniors? or is the ARU/NSWRU/Shute Sheild managers who have created a system where by clubs with no financial backing never stand a chance at retaining local talent.

Bruce this is by no means directed at you, but Sydney Uni didn't feature in any semi finals at any level over the weekend (again please correct if wrong), yet seem to have more colts and more depth then anyone else. I know facilities and opportunity play a part, but does the core problem with the ARU and the potential for change not start here!

Just food for thought but very interesting results, and a very interesting comparison to the senior sides and senior success. Personally the Pulverisation of Australian RUgby should start here, as it's his backyard losing the talent!
 
Ted S Hunter

Ted S Hunter

Peter Burge (5)
Cheers for the fill in IS! Good effort from the boys from the south coast! Someone had to break up the northern Sydney domination!
 
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
How do the numbers of junior feeder clubs compare?

I know very little about junior rugby these days but it looks like Sydney Uni have three small junior clubs in the Inner West and don't contest every grade at the state champs.

How many teams do Manly have?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top