Where to for Super Rugby?

[lou75]

It's payment for half the games of their season that they play for the test team.

Those players are still paid a Super Rugby salary and none of them are paid a pittance by their Super Rugby club because they get paid to play for the Wallabies.

The ARU is never going to dictate where their key players must live if they want to play for the Wallabies.

Each team needs to attract players on their own merits. Clearly it is easier for the east coast teams to attract players because that is where the majority of them come from originally.

Perth's position is improving in that regard because they have more local players which are keen to live in Perth. They have also seemingly built a really strong culture this year and that sort of thing also helps attract players.

This argument that somehow the ARU are going to stop paying to retain the key Wallabies and instead let the Super Rugby sides control all that spending or alternatively dictate where they must live if they want to play for the Wallabies is complete fantasy.

I dont think it is an argument about where the money goes, I think it was an observation that large amounts of money went to the Melbourne Rebels franchise, but also, large amounts of money went to other franchises - its just a simple statement

 

[James Pettifer]

It's payment for half games of their season that they play for the test team.

Those players are still paid a Super Rugby salary and none of them are paid a pittance by their Super Rugby club because they get paid to play for the Wallabies.

The ARU is never going to dictate where their key players must live if they want to play for the Wallabies.

Each team needs to attract players on their own merits. Clearly it is easier for the east coast teams to attract players because that is where the majority of them come from originally.

Perth's position is improving in that regard because they have more local players which are keen to live in Perth. They have also seemingly built a really strong culture this year and that sort of thing also helps attract players.

This argument that somehow the ARU are going to stop paying to retain the key Wallabies and instead let the Super Rugby sides control all that spending or alternatively dictate where they must live if they want to play for the Wallabies is complete fantasy.

Except that means that the Rebels and Force are _always_ going to have substandard teams (from a pure personal basis). They will then typically finish towards the bottom of the table and will thus get lower sponsorship and lower crowds and thus are more likely to require additional funding.

The point of a salary cap is to bring the teams to an equal level. Adding the top ups without taking this into account just destroys the point entirely.

 

[Braveheart81]

Except that means that the Rebels and Force are _always_ going to have substandard teams (from a pure personal basis). They will then typically finish towards the bottom of the table and will thus get lower sponsorship and lower crowds and thus are more likely to require additional funding.

The point of a salary cap is to bring the teams to an equal level. Adding the top ups without taking this into account just destroys the point entirely.

Maybe they could be given a higher salary cap then.

The problem is that neither of them would have the money to pay those higher salaries.

Expecting that somehow the ARU will or should take steps to weaken their ability to retain their key Wallabies is crazy though. Those players will continue to live in the city they want to live in which most of the time will be the place they are originally from.

My suggest would be that the Force and Rebels are given something similar to the AFL's old cost of living allowance such that contracts are automatically paid 10% higher (i.e. their salary cap is also 10% higher but it is equally split across the team). That would help balance the fact that it is harder for them to attract players.

 

[Killer]

maybe a ceiling on Top ups, it should be generous but not too high as to not give other franchises the ability/chance to attract high profile players.
Look what Taf has done for the WF's local profile amongst un engaged rugby lovers. We could never have got him over here under normal circumstances.

 

[Braveheart81]

maybe a ceiling on Top ups, it should be generous but not too high as to not give other franchises the ability/chance to attract high profile players.
Look what Taf has done for the WF's local profile amongst un engaged rugby lovers. We could never have got him over here under normal circumstances.

For those top players Super Rugby will account for about half the games they play in a season and from a revenue perspective the Wallaby games are far more important. I think the reality is that the Wallaby side of their contracts will form the majority of their pay.

The ARU is going to do their best to look after their key revenue stream which is also what enables them to fund Super Rugby.

The amount allocated to Super Rugby in the broadcast agreements is somewhat arbitrary. The test matches represent the overwhelming majority of where the value lies for the broadcasters.

 

[Killer]

For those top players Super Rugby will account for about half the games they play in a season and from a revenue perspective the Wallaby games are far more important. I think the reality is that the Wallaby side of their contracts will form the majority of their pay.

The ARU is going to do their best to look after their key revenue stream which is also what enables them to fund Super Rugby.

The amount allocated to Super Rugby in the broadcast agreements is somewhat arbitrary. The test matches represent the overwhelming majority of where the value lies for the broadcasters.

for sure but grassroots is the foundation under it all, that's why we are in the situation that we are. We need strong rugby communities all around the country.

 

[Braveheart81]

for sure but grassroots is the foundation under it all, that's why we are in the situation that we are. We need strong rugby communities all around the country.

Of course we do.

There isn't any money for the grassroots though if it isn't being generated at the top though.

A big part of the problem is that we don't have a lot of teams generating revenue. The administration required to run the game wouldn't really increase much if the revenue generated was 50% higher.

When the game was amateur it wasn't really an issue because the highest cost item (the players) were giving their services for free. Now they're the biggest cost in the game (and rightly so) and creating free cash flow to help grow the game is very difficult.

 

[Killer]

yes its a balancing act, but longer term our future competitiveness at international level depends on numbers playing and competition for spots. This is enhanced by having strong rugby communities and part of that is having a system that promotes that. In my mind the current top up system does not promote that.

 

[James Pettifer]

For those top players Super Rugby will account for about half the games they play in a season and from a revenue perspective the Wallaby games are far more important. I think the reality is that the Wallaby side of their contracts will form the majority of their pay.

The ARU is going to do their best to look after their key revenue stream which is also what enables them to fund Super Rugby.

The amount allocated to Super Rugby in the broadcast agreements is somewhat arbitrary. The test matches represent the overwhelming majority of where the value lies for the broadcasters.

The Rebels aren't able to realistically compete against the Waratahs when the Waratahs have players who are paid an extra 50% spend on their players.

We can't keep our rising stars (Hugh Pyle, Luke Jones, Sean McMahon) because of the overseas offers. There was that year when the Waratahs were able to pull both Kurtley Beale and Nick Phipps from the Rebels as well as stop the Rebels from signing Foley.
And if that is the way it is going to be going forward (as it has in the past) then no one should pretend to be surprised when, over a long term basis, the Rebels and Force underperform compared to the other teams because it is very likely to always happen. (yes I know the Force had a good year this year, but 2015 and 2016 were pretty bad).

 

[Braveheart81]

The Rebels aren't able to realistically compete against the Waratahs when the Waratahs have players who are paid an extra 50% spend on their players.

We can't keep our rising stars (Hugh Pyle, Luke Jones, Sean McMahon) because of the overseas offers. There was that year when the Waratahs were able to pull both Kurtley Beale and Nick Phipps from the Rebels as well as stop the Rebels from signing Foley.
And if that is the way it is going to be going forward (as it has in the past) then no one should pretend to be surprised when, over a long term basis, the Rebels and Force underperform compared to the other teams because it is very likely to always happen. (yes I know the Force had a good year this year, but 2015 and 2016 were pretty bad).

You assume that the Rebels can't compete for those players because of the ARU money. The reality is that they have to pay overs for those players because they want to live in their home city of Sydney.

All the teams struggle to keep the players that are just outside being regular Wallabies because they are the players who have the biggest disparity in earnings potential playing overseas versus just playing Super Rugby.

When the Waratahs brought Beale and Phipps back from Melbourne it was two players who wanted to return to Sydney. Beale went to Melbourne for more money and it obviously worked out terribly for all parties. Phipps went there for opportunity originally and then was in a position where his career was at the point he could get the starting gig in Sydney.

The Waratahs lost 4 Wallabies before the 2014 season which explains why could afford to bring those players back.

 

[Highlander35]

If individual Super Salaries aren't capped (a la how NZ does it) then a proportion of the Wallaby top up contracts should be included in the salary cap, once a team gets over a certain amount.

So, which no financial knowledge whatsoever. This is how I envisage it:

Excluding wankers on Sabbaticals: Wallaby Top ups total $10,000,000
5 Super Teams are retained
25% is the soft cap

So if the Waratahs have 32% of the financial value of Wallaby top ups, they'd have to do with $700,000 less dollars in their salary cap.

Not enough of a penalty to discourage those genuinely wanting to live and work in Sydney/Canberra/Brisbane. Enough of a penalty to make the sides reconsider shit like the Foley deal, and force compromises on either players 16-23 or a gun or two.

 

[chiraag]

I would think the fairest and simplest solution would be to separate the Super Rugby and Wallaby top up contracts. At the moment, they are negotiated as a single contract and therefore the Super Rugby portion of a wallaby's contract is likely smaller than it would be if they weren't a wallaby.

For example, Izzy might be on $1m a year, of which they count $700k as a wallaby top up. But he's really worth more than $300k to the Tahs. Having a more open market for super rugby players without the top-ups needing to be considered would create a more even distribution of the better players as everyone would then be on a level playing field.

Sure the Force or the Rebels may need to pay a bit more to lure players from the NSW or Qld homes, but that would be much easier with a level playing field. Of course this won't happen as it wouldn't favour the "heartlands".

I'd be much happier with more of a performance based Wallaby contract system (i.e. earn more money for wins than losses) also.

 

[James Pettifer]

For example, Izzy might be on $1m a year, of which they count $700k as a wallaby top up. But he's really worth more than $300k to the Tahs. Having a more open market for super rugby players without the top-ups needing to be considered would create a more even distribution of the better players as everyone would then be on a level playing field.

And that then just makes it worse. The Reds were hoping for Hunt to do well enough to get a top up so that they could reduce what they were paying him and thus free money under their salary cap to spend on other players.

 

[James Pettifer]

You assume that the Rebels can't compete for those players because of the ARU money. The reality is that they have to pay overs for those players because they want to live in their home city of Sydney.

What happens normally when you have a salary cap is that players can want to stay in their home city / team but all of them can't because they can't all fit under the salary cap - which is one of the 2 main points (the other being stopping teams from going bankrupt)

If we are going to continue having unfair caps, then people can't complain about the under performance of the Rebels

It really depends whether the ARU want the Super Rugby teams to be just a feeder for the Wallabies or whether they want them to be a true competitive and fair system. If the former, then they need more centralisation of coaching and player selections. If the latter, then the talent needs to be spread equally. At the moment, they are having feet in both camps and failing in both.

 

[FiveStarStu]

It really depends whether the ARU want the Super Rugby teams to be just a feeder for the Wallabies or whether they want them to be a true competitive and fair system.

They don't know what they want which is part of the reason we're in this mess.

A good solution would be to introduce a marquee system similar to the A-League for which Wallaby-contracted players qualify. Each team can pay, say, three players their total take home outside the cap. Other players then have a choice - to stay in NSW (why mince words) and get paid less, or to move interstate and take up a marquee role elsewhere.

The longer the ARU don't regulate Wallaby top-ups as part of the salary cap, the more useless it becomes.

 

[Braveheart81]

What happens normally when you have a salary cap is that players can want to stay in their home city / team but all of them can't because they can't all fit under the salary cap - which is one of the 2 main points (the other being stopping teams from going bankrupt)

Players do get squeezed out. Higginbotham got squeezed out of the Reds after they won Super Rugby because suddenly they had a whole lot of excellent players all demanding a lot more money.

I think making the connection that the Wallaby top ups is what allowed the Waratahs to sign those players ignores the high salaried players that left in those years to allow new players to be signed.

They don't know what they want which is part of the reason we're in this mess.

A good solution would be to introduce a marquee system similar to the A-League for which Wallaby-contracted players qualify. Each team can pay, say, three players their total take home outside the cap. Other players then have a choice - to stay in NSW (why mince words) and get paid less, or to move interstate and take up a marquee role elsewhere.

The longer the ARU don't regulate Wallaby top-ups as part of the salary cap, the more useless it becomes.

The Wallabies generate the bulk of their revenue. They're not going to make decisions that give some of their best players the ultimatum of either moving interstate or going overseas.

First and foremost the ARU are going to make decisions that they think is in the best interests of the Wallabies because that is where the bulk of the revenue is generated.

 

[James Pettifer]

First and foremost the ARU are going to make decisions that they think is in the best interests of the Wallabies because that is where the bulk of the revenue is generated.

But they don't. Pure and simple. If they really acted fully in the best interests of the Wallabies then things would be more centralised. You wouldn't have (for example)

• ARU contracted players without a team
• Players playing in a different position for their super rugby team v the Australian team
• The Australian coach complaining that players are unfit
• A privately owned franchise

It shows a lack of clarity of strategy. It also completely sabotages the success of growing rugby into new areas as the expansion teams are always going to perform poorly. This then makes it more difficult to grow the profile of the team and the crowds and thus be successful on a long term basis.
Then having people complain that the Rebels suck and should be culled because of that. Under the current way that the Australian teams are run, they are always going to suck. Sure the Rebels may have won more matches than the Reds over the past 2 years but it is never going to last.

 

[Braveheart81]

But they don't. Pure and simple. If they really acted fully in the best interests of the Wallabies then things would be more centralised. You wouldn't have (for example)

• ARU contracted players without a team
• Players playing in a different position for their super rugby team v the Australian team
• The Australian coach complaining that players are unfit
• A privately owned franchise

I think there it is pretty evident that they are trying to increase the centralisation and collaboration of the Super Rugby teams similar to the NZ model.

Why that wasn't done years ago is another question.

I'd say the privately owned franchise was more out of necessity than a desire to have that model.

Ultimately I think improving the level of centralisation will improve both the Super Rugby teams and the Wallabies.

 

[wamberal]

Imagine the hue and cry if the ARU had attempted to enforce centralisation. The reaction from the Bumblies alone would be nuclear. They hate everybody else with a vengeance, always have, especially those from head office.......NSW in general is the big enemy. Always was.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]