"Transparency" at the ARU

[lou75]

g

Spiro Zavos is often attacked in these fora but IMO he makes some very valid points and observations here, many of which relate directly to this thread's topic:

http://www.theroar.com.au/2017/05/22/spiro-aru-madness-pocock-earns-three-times-mcmahon-not-playing/

great article, thanks

 

[I like to watch]

"Pocock’s greatest days were years ago, in the 2011 Rugby World Cup tournament probably. Occasionally, as at Sydney when the Wallabies defeated the All Blacks before the 2015 Rugby World Cup tournament, he was capable of a great performance. But he was out-played by Richie McCaw in the final of that tournament."

Sure, he got outplayed in the final of the RWC but he was also a big part of getting us there. 2015 featured some of the best rugby of Pocock's career. It is rubbish to say that his greatest days were years ago.

Pocock is the single most important player the Wallabies have and that is reflected by the fact that our winning percentage is higher when he plays.

Sure the ARU are paying him for a season where he isn't here, but clearly there is a plan of getting him to the RWC. If the contract had been for the same dollars with zero dollars for this year, would people be complaining as much?

It is surely better for the ARU's cashflow that the money is spread across a longer period of time.

It would be great if McMahon could be offered a massive guaranteed contract but even this year without Pocock here he isn't a guaranteed starter for the Wallabies.

I'm a fan of Pocock, and I get that the ARU have effectively agreed to pay him for two years work over 3 years,no problem with that.
But that then values him at $1.4M a year?
That only makes sense to me if, there are 1/2 dozen wallabies on $1M+
Otherwise he is vastly overpaid when compared to his team mates.

 

[RedsHappy]

"Pocock’s greatest days were years ago, in the 2011 Rugby World Cup tournament probably. Occasionally, as at Sydney when the Wallabies defeated the All Blacks before the 2015 Rugby World Cup tournament, he was capable of a great performance. But he was out-played by Richie McCaw in the final of that tournament."

Sure, he got outplayed in the final of the RWC but he was also a big part of getting us there. 2015 featured some of the best rugby of Pocock's career. It is rubbish to say that his greatest days were years ago.

Pocock is the single most important player the Wallabies have and that is reflected by the fact that our winning percentage is higher when he plays.

Sure the ARU are paying him for a season where he isn't here, but clearly there is a plan of getting him to the RWC. If the contract had been for the same dollars with zero dollars for this year, would people be complaining as much?

It is surely better for the ARU's cashflow that the money is spread across a longer period of time.

It would be great if McMahon could be offered a massive guaranteed contract but even this year without Pocock here he isn't a guaranteed starter for the Wallabies.

The deeper question invoked in this discussion is surely not one of just lauding Pocock and defending the ARU's $1m pa to him but this:

In time of very scarce financial resources under ARU control and the quality of the Australian game overall deteriorating, is the best use of such highly material funds on a very small group of elite Wallaby players or, say, (as examples of the point) using them to start building a national coach and/or skills development academy (or such like) or as the base for a broader fund to keep less high-profile A++ players here but a wider range in number of very solid A class players?

(An aside only: IMO if we'd kept L Gill in Australia he would have done almost as well as Pocock at breakdown pilfering but way better in loose play, line out, link play and had many more productive years in front of him than Pocock - our obsession with Pocock (and the idiotic bungling of the QRU) was one of the many reasons Gill has departed and may never return.)

 

[Braveheart81]

The deeper question invoked in this discussion is surely not one of just lauding Pocock and defending the ARU's $1m pa to him but this:

In time of very scarce financial resources under ARU control and the quality of the Australian game overall deteriorating, is the best use of such highly material funds on a very small group of elite Wallaby players or, say, (as examples of the point) using them to start building a national coach and/or skills development academy (or such like) or as the base for a broader fund to keep less high-profile A++ players here but a wider range in number of very solid A class players?

(An aside only: IMO if we'd kept L Gill in Australia he would have done almost as well as Pocock at breakdown pilfering but way better in loose play, line out, link play and had many more productive years in front of him than Pocock - our obsession with Pocock (and the idiotic bungling of the QRU) was one of the many reasons Gill has departed and may never return.)

I think Pocock is a lot better than Gill. Pocock's test record is testament to how important he is to the team. It's obviously impossible to tell what Gill's influence might have been without him playing more tests but that's the reality of the situation. He could never push himself in front of Pocock and Hooper.

The ARU also needs to spend the money on the players as part of their CBA. Certainly they could spend less on Pocock and more on other players to help try and retain them but how that money is allocated is another question. Maybe the ARU throws Gill $100k extra a year to try and keep him in the country but would that have been enough?

 

[Gnostic]

Its a debate about the depth of the game. Do we need two 7s in Australia who are Wallaby level or with 5 teams at least 3 or 4 to ensure real competition for spots and genuinely competitive Super sides. Add McMahon into the mix and you have four genuinely good 7s with Alcock and a couple of others in depth. Certainly better than paying a bloke over the top money and leaving the cupboard bare and the teams uncompetitive. So we will be left with Pocock and Hooper and some depth players.

It is not even necessary to debate if Pocock is better than X. IMO contracts like his have added greatly to the decline of Australian Rugby, add in Elsom et al and you have a demonstrated focus in contracting that has eroded the depth of the Super sides and competition for Wallaby spots, and it is not just about money, but the ethical structure of the contracts and how people are paid for having time off, coming back to Australia and being virtually guaranteed Wallaby places etc. If you are a Gill or McMahon or Mowen, why bother - there is no integrity to the process and no genuine competition so regardless of how well you play or how much of a C%$$#% a bloke behaves you will not be selected.

 

[Braveheart81]

Its a debate about the depth of the game. Do we need two 7s in Australia who are Wallaby level or with 5 teams at least 3 or 4 to ensure real competition for spots and genuinely competitive Super sides. Add McMahon into the mix and you have four genuinely good 7s with Alcock and a couple of others in depth. Certainly better than paying a bloke over the top money and leaving the cupboard bare and the teams uncompetitive. So we will be left with Pocock and Hooper and some depth players.

It is not even necessary to debate if Pocock is better than X. IMO contracts like his have added greatly to the decline of Australian Rugby, add in Elsom et al and you have a demonstrated focus in contracting that has eroded the depth of the Super sides and competition for Wallaby spots, and it is not just about money, but the ethical structure of the contracts and how people are paid for having time off, coming back to Australia and being virtually guaranteed Wallaby places etc. If you are a Gill or McMahon or Mowen, why bother - there is no integrity to the process and no genuine competition so regardless of how well you play or how much of a C%$$#% a bloke behaves you will not be selected.

The crucial thing for the ARU is retaining the players key to the Wallabies in Australia.

If you split the money more evenly across two to three times as many players then there is still a huge gulf in what those players can earn compared to playing overseas and you probably lose more of the players you don't want.

Mowen is a read herring. He played well for the Wallabies at a time when there were multiple number 8 options missing through injury and the coach didn't go out of his way to retain him by offering him a big contract. If McKenzie had wanted him as a priority, they would have made him a better offer.

The integrity in the process is that if you are not right around the best Wallabies matchday 23, you probably won't be offered a big contract to stay.

As has been the case for a number of years, the players we lose most are those just outside that who have the greatest differential in what they can earn between here and overseas. They know that if they stay and get selected to play the majority of tests in a year their earnings will be quite similar but it isn't guaranteed so they take the guaranteed contract overseas.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Its a debate about the depth of the game. Do we need two 7s in Australia who are Wallaby level or with 5 teams at least 3 or 4 to ensure real competition for spots and genuinely competitive Super sides. Add McMahon into the mix and you have four genuinely good 7s with Alcock and a couple of others in depth. Certainly better than paying a bloke over the top money and leaving the cupboard bare and the teams uncompetitive. So we will be left with Pocock and Hooper and some depth players.

It is not even necessary to debate if Pocock is better than X. IMO contracts like his have added greatly to the decline of Australian Rugby, add in Elsom et al and you have a demonstrated focus in contracting that has eroded the depth of the Super sides and competition for Wallaby spots, and it is not just about money, but the ethical structure of the contracts and how people are paid for having time off, coming back to Australia and being virtually guaranteed Wallaby places etc. If you are a Gill or McMahon or Mowen, why bother - there is no integrity to the process and no genuine competition so regardless of how well you play or how much of a C%$$#% a bloke behaves you will not be selected.

Don't leave out of consideration the fact, as Spiro has written today, that Pocock is being paid 3 times as much not to play as McMahon is being paid to play.
Tye ARU is not in the financial or rugby position to be doing shit like that.

 

[Gnostic]

The crucial thing for the ARU is retaining the players key to the Wallabies in Australia.



If you split the money more evenly across two to three times as many players then there is still a huge gulf in what those players can earn compared to playing overseas and you probably lose more of the players you don't want.



Mowen is a read herring. He played well for the Wallabies at a time when there were multiple number 8 options missing through injury and the coach didn't go out of his way to retain him by offering him a big contract. If McKenzie had wanted him as a priority, they would have made him a better offer.



The integrity in the process is that if you are not right around the best Wallabies matchday 23, you probably won't be offered a big contract to stay.



As has been the case for a number of years, the players we lose most are those just outside that who have the greatest differential in what they can earn between here and overseas. They know that if they stay and get selected to play the majority of tests in a year their earnings will be quite similar but it isn't guaranteed so they take the guaranteed contract overseas.

You miss completely what I mean about the integrity of the system. Selected players have been able to command top ups and peak deals and do whatever they want including getting special dispensations to go overseas and come straight back on more big deals whenever they want to. They have cheapened the "honour" of making the cut to the point it all becomes about the money. I know you don't agree, so I will not argue the point, but real ethics are not negotiable and will spur performance, while semantics and less than rigorous systems that play favourites such as we have seen in Wallabies selections and contracting for more than a decade will erode depth and confidence in the system.

 

[refugee]

Why would you stay if someone can have a walk up start over you without doing the grind.
Every professional player should have an annual review.
There are some who are well below the required standard mentally and this shows when they take the field .

 

[RedsHappy]

The crucial thing for the ARU is retaining the players key to the Wallabies in Australia.

If you split the money more evenly across two to three times as many players then there is still a huge gulf in what those players can earn compared to playing overseas and you probably lose more of the players you don't want.

Mowen is a read herring. He played well for the Wallabies at a time when there were multiple number 8 options missing through injury and the coach didn't go out of his way to retain him by offering him a big contract. If McKenzie had wanted him as a priority, they would have made him a better offer.

The integrity in the process is that if you are not right around the best Wallabies matchday 23, you probably won't be offered a big contract to stay.

As has been the case for a number of years, the players we lose most are those just outside that who have the greatest differential in what they can earn between here and overseas. They know that if they stay and get selected to play the majority of tests in a year their earnings will be quite similar but it isn't guaranteed so they take the guaranteed contract overseas.

Nah - that is not 'the crucial thing for the ARU', nowhere near it, not even close. Or if it is, then it should not be.

The Crucial Thing is ultimately not one or two star Wallabies whose fortunes as individual players wax and wane (incl via injury as we see with Pocock) but about having a big-enough and broad-enough totality of elite players that (a) are sustainably competitive in skills and S&C and team capability with leading international peers over time and (b) remain in adequate numbers in Australia.

If we cannot and do not create some form of (a) we will never have (b) and furthermore the totality of even the Wallabies capabilities to win key matches will decline as a few stars in a rugby team can rarely make up the gap if half or more of the team is gradually falling in core, globally competitive standards (namely as is the case today).

Much of (a) above depends on the intelligent and strategic management of our total, vertically integrated rugby playing and rugby skills development infrastructure, top-to-bottom. And that needs $ capital allocated to it, as well as excellent leadership over it.

Our question today, right now, is what are our biggest priorities for investment for scare resources? And which seeming other, or historical priorities, require killing off to free up resources for the really critical priorities so as to save the code here.

We are still behaving as though we can afford to 'do it all kind of just like we used to', and we cannot. Very hard choices re priorities have to be made.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

The best ad for scrapping centralised top ups is the Tahs: thats what lack of motivation and a sense of entitlement produces.

 

[Twoilms]

The best ad for scrapping centralised top ups is the Tahs: thats what lack of motivation and a sense of entitlement produces.

The 'Tahs best players this year by an absolute country mile have been Hooper and Foley, followed by Kepu and, despite his relatively poor form, Folau.

 

[Braveheart81]

So the argument here is that we should be giving less money to Adam Coleman and Rory Arnold, far and away our two best locks so we could give more money to the 5th or so choice, Will Skelton to try and keep him in the country.

I think we minimise how many important players we lose by trying to pay who we deem the best, the most money.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

The 'Tahs best players this year by an absolute country mile have been Hooper and Foley, followed by Kepu and, despite his relatively poor form, Folau.

So what?
Even if you're right all that makes them is the best of an absolute rabble.
And it kind of proves my point when you come out and defend them - because they're the best in the Tahs they have a right to a top up.

 

[Braveheart81]

So what?
Even if you're right all that makes them is the best of an absolute rabble.
And it kind of proves my point when you come out and defend them - because they're the best in the Tahs they have a right to a top up.

Isn't the aim to try and pay players what they are worth on the open market?

For our best players we can get somewhere towards doing that. We don't have nearly enough money to do it for our top 50 players.

Would paying our top 20 players less and players 21-50 more be a better option or would it mean that we just lose a lot more of our top players overseas because they have the potential to earn so much more money and are potentially overpaying players 40-50.

It's a tough question. We have an agreement to pay our players a certain percentage of revenue so that is fixed. We have competition from foreign clubs in terms of retaining our players.

How do we best allocate those funds to achieve the best result for the Wallabies?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Isn't the aim to try and pay players what they are worth on the open market?

For our best players we can get somewhere towards doing that. We don't have nearly enough money to do it for our top 50 players.

Would paying our top 20 players less and players 21-50 more be a better option or would it mean that we just lose a lot more of our top players overseas because they have the potential to earn so much more money and are potentially overpaying players 40-50.

It's a tough question. We have an agreement to pay our players a certain percentage of revenue so that is fixed. We have competition from foreign clubs in terms of retaining our players.

How do we best allocate those funds to achieve the best result for the Wallabies?

Do the opposite of what we're doing.
Save the money on Pocock.
Spend it on a study like this one:
Rugby research team find 20-minute exercise plan reduces injury risk

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/may/17/rugby-union-research-exercise-plan-injuries

 

[Braveheart81]

Save the money on Pocock.
Spend it on a study like this one:

They don't have that option. They have to pay the players a certain percentage of the revenue under the CBA.

I doubt they'd ever be able to sign a new CBA offering the players a significantly lower percentage of revenue either.

 

[Strewthcobber]

They don't have that option. They have to pay the players a certain percentage of the revenue under the CBA.

I doubt they'd ever be able to sign a new CBA offering the players a significantly lower percentage of revenue either.

See Cricket Australia for what happens when you attempt too.

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[I like to watch]

The CBA is irrelevant, we are losing players year on year because the money available is not enough to keep all of them here.Without a CBA , salaries would be close to what we have,or there would be an additional 50 players going overseas.
The argument is who gets what part of the pie.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

They don't have that option. They have to pay the players a certain percentage of the revenue under the CBA.

I doubt they'd ever be able to sign a new CBA offering the players a significantly lower percentage of revenue either.

Paying the players a certain percentage is not the same as (a) paying any particular player $X, or (b) giving someone time off with full pay for a year.
The more I think about that the less it makes sense.