Where to for Super Rugby?

[Micheal]

The salary cap question is critical IMO - regardless of what happens in the future. I think that the easiest way to implement the necessary changes is fairly straight forward. 1 cap for Super rugby, and then each team is assigned a supplementary cap equivalent to 25% (or 20%) of the total Wallaby top-up pool.

So you might get 4mil to spend on your super squad, but can have no more than an additional 2mil in wallaby top-ups (or whatever the figure is). Not sure what to do about 3rd-party deals, I'm pretty sure that there's no real point in trying to police them, and I think that they should be encouraged.

The problem is, hypothetically (I have no numbers to back this up, so allow me some creative freedom):

The Western Force have Coleman and DHP who are on Wallaby top-ups of $600,000 each.

They take top spot in the Aus conference this year, stumble through the finals and win the lot.

Next year they go from strength-to-strength and win it back-to-back. Coleman, DHP, Hardwick, Rona and Louwrens are the cornerstones of this dominance and all become regular Wallabies.

The ARU want to secure them and offer Hardwick, Rona and Louwrens $300,000 each in top-ups.

What happens here? The Force would clearly breach the $2mil rule.

Do you force one of them to move interstate? Which one? Where does he go?

My point is, strong teams are strong because of strong players, and even mediocre players look great in these teams (I have a theory ALB is the most overrated centre of all time who somehow found himself in the All Blacks - I could score a fucking try for the All Blacks for christs sake).

If a team develops a core of awesome players and they all deserve top-ups, does the team really deserve to lose these players because of it?

 

[Twoilms]

I think this has absolute merit it's just a matter of how to cut the overall financial benefit created by rationalisation. I still maintain that keeping the likes of Sean Mac , Gill , Genia , Jones , To'omua , Alo Emile ,Skelton etc should be one of the ARUs highest priorities

With all that money they had to throw at them.

 

[wamberal]

I just can't see how it will be a 'blessing in disguise' though i would hardly contend with your assertion Super Rugby is coming to an end.

It's overwhelmingly bad for Australian rugby. We will never be able to create a local competition that generates enough revenue to keep players in Australia. Anything we create will be third rate to begin with and second rate at absolute best.

But it might be entertaining. The SS games can be pretty entertaining, although a lot depends on whether one cares who wins; it is surprisingly easy to care, if you know a bit about the traditions and so on of the two clubs on display.


For me there are three elements that are absolutely essential in a domestic competition. First of all the officiating has to be more of the Wayne Ericsson school, and a lot less like any of the galoots who blow the pea out of the whistle these days.


Secondly, the teams have to have tradition and identity.


Thirdly, the teams have to have decent crowd support.


Put all that together, and it can work, up to a point.

 

[blues recovery]

I think most of us know this is the least worst option, a Rebels/Brumbies merger based out of Melbourne (due to Imperium's contracts).

Unfortunately due to the ARU's bungling, it now can't happen. They've pumped up the Brumbies too much to ensure any backtracking would be met with even more lawsuits.

You know Stu somewhere behind this Maxwell Smart cone of silence I pray that there is actually real negotiations of this nature going on that are just being kept really quiet as the best merger discussions should be . And at the appropriate time ( pretty bloody soon ) the grand plan is unveiled with appropriate fanfare and support of all
But then again I think I just saw a flying pig

 

[blues recovery]

The problem is, hypothetically (I have no numbers to back this up, so allow me some creative freedom):

The Western Force have Coleman and DHP who are on Wallaby top-ups of $600,000 each.

They take top spot in the Aus conference this year, stumble through the finals and win the lot.

Next year they go from strength-to-strength and win it back-to-back. Coleman, DHP, Hardwick, Rona and Louwrens are the cornerstones of this dominance and all become regular Wallabies.

The ARU want to secure them and offer Hardwick, Rona and Louwrens $300,000 each in top-ups.

What happens here? The Force would clearly breach the $2mil rule.

Do you force one of them to move interstate? Which one? Where does he go?

My point is, strong teams are strong because of strong players, and even mediocre players look great in these teams (I have a theory ALB is the most overrated centre of all time who somehow found himself in the All Blacks - I could score a fucking try for the All Blacks for christs sake).

If a team develops a core of awesome players and they all deserve top-ups, does the team really deserve to lose these players because of it?

Welcome to the world of NFL , Major League Baseball , AFL and NRL
Teams in these competitions have to accept that rosters have to turn over to keep within caps and it sometimes means losing players you love and have developed

 

[Twoilms]

The problem is, hypothetically (I have no numbers to back this up, so allow me some creative freedom):

The Western Force have Coleman and DHP who are on Wallaby top-ups of $600,000 each.

They take top spot in the Aus conference this year, stumble through the finals and win the lot.

Next year they go from strength-to-strength and win it back-to-back. Coleman, DHP, Hardwick, Rona and Louwrens are the cornerstones of this dominance and all become regular Wallabies.

The ARU want to secure them and offer Hardwick, Rona and Louwrens $300,000 each in top-ups.

What happens here? The Force would clearly breach the $2mil rule.

Do you force one of them to move interstate? Which one? Where does he go?

My point is, strong teams are strong because of strong players, and even mediocre players look great in these teams (I have a theory ALB is the most overrated centre of all time who somehow found himself in the All Blacks - I could score a fucking try for the All Blacks for christs sake).

If a team develops a core of awesome players and they all deserve top-ups, does the team really deserve to lose these players because of it?

This issue could be dealt with pretty easily to be honest. A framework could be set up to allow some elasticity in the rules where appropriate.

For example, you could allow a breach up to a certain threshold for clubs who's players have progressed and become more valuable Wallabies. Say an additional 20% allowance. This would still prevent them from hording players and creating team in-balances as they cannot sign a player if it will push them over the threshold as the bonus only applies to wage growth, not new signings. Its also an incentive for loyalty and performance.

I would love to work on the creation of effective administrative rugby structures in Australia. Shame they'll give the job to some fat old baby boomer fluffybunny from Joey's with 6 investment properties and no fucking idea.

 

[James Pettifer]

The problem is, hypothetically (I have no numbers to back this up, so allow me some creative freedom):

The Western Force have Coleman and DHP who are on Wallaby top-ups of $600,000 each.

They take top spot in the Aus conference this year, stumble through the finals and win the lot.

Next year they go from strength-to-strength and win it back-to-back. Coleman, DHP, Hardwick, Rona and Louwrens are the cornerstones of this dominance and all become regular Wallabies.

The ARU want to secure them and offer Hardwick, Rona and Louwrens $300,000 each in top-ups.

What happens here? The Force would clearly breach the $2mil rule.

Do you force one of them to move interstate? Which one? Where does he go?

My point is, strong teams are strong because of strong players, and even mediocre players look great in these teams (I have a theory ALB is the most overrated centre of all time who somehow found himself in the All Blacks - I could score a fucking try for the All Blacks for christs sake).

If a team develops a core of awesome players and they all deserve top-ups, does the team really deserve to lose these players because of it?

Yes. That is the point of a salary cap.

It can happen in the AFL, the NRL and the A-League. In fact, it can happen in any sport where there is a salary cap.

What it would definitely stop is (for example) Phipps and Beale leaving the Rebels to join the Waratahs without the Waratahs having to give someone up.

The key difference is who decides how much top up to give to each player as in most sports there are only 2 parties involved in the transaction but with Super Rugby in Australia, there are 3 parties.

 

[Braveheart81]

Welcome to the world of NFL , Major League Baseball , AFL and NRL
Teams in these competitions have to accept that rosters have to turn over to keep within caps and it sometimes means losing players you love and have developed

The problem here though is that players are getting paid for different things.

American sports don't have that issue. In the NRL, State of Origin and International match payments don't count towards the salary cap.

Does it really work in the ARU's favour if they create a rule that means that in order to offer someone a top up contract (and try and decrease the chance of that person taking up an overseas offer), they say to that person that in order to be paid what they deserve for being important to the Wallabies they have to move interstate?

 

[Braveheart81]

Yes. That is the point of a salary cap.

It can happen in the AFL, the NRL and the A-League. In fact, it can happen in any sport where there is a salary cap.

What it would definitely stop is (for example) Phipps and Beale leaving the Rebels to join the Waratahs without the Waratahs having to give someone up.

The key difference is who decides how much top up to give to each player as in most sports there are only 2 parties involved in the transaction but with Super Rugby in Australia, there are 3 parties.

The Tahs lost Berrick Barnes and Drew Mitchell who would have been two of their highest paid players as well as Lachie Turner who was an experienced Wallaby.

 

[Slim 293]

I think most of us know this is the least worst option, a Rebels/Brumbies merger based out of Melbourne (due to Imperium's contracts).

When you say 'most of us,' what you mean is Rebels fans......... because this would be terrible for us Brumbies supporters.

It would also eventually destroy both teams.

 

[Quick Hands]

The problem here though is that players are getting paid for different things.

American sports don't have that issue. In the NRL, State of Origin and International match payments don't count towards the salary cap.

Does it really work in the ARU's favour if they create a rule that means that in order to offer someone a top up contract (and try and decrease the chance of that person taking up an overseas offer), they say to that person that in order to be paid what they deserve for being important to the Wallabies they have to move interstate?

Plenty of people have to work where there employer tells them. If these guys are putting their hand out for big money, then it goes with the territory. Plenty of AFL players have to move interstate as a result of the draft.

Any centralised contract system (which I think you favour) would surely mean that the ARU would allocate players equally to the different super teams?

 

[kiap]

I just can't see how it will be a 'blessing in disguise' though i would hardly contend with your assertion Super Rugby is coming to an end.

Yup. Super Rugby will come to an end anyway.

5 teams, 4 teams, or 3 teams. The bloated season, 4 continent model is dead.

It's overwhelmingly bad for Australian rugby.

Wrong.

But it's almost inevitable.

We will never be able to create a local competition that generates enough revenue

Super Rugby doesn't generate much revenue. Sorry to break that news.

Anything we create will be third rate to begin with and second rate at absolute best.

Be aware that losing "Super Rugby" is not the same as never being able
to play New Zealand teams (or South African teams, if that's your thing) again. Any transcontinental club comp needs to be shorter and sharper with fewer teams than the old Supe which drags on and on with barely a care.

But the bulk of the season needs continuity of matches within watchable timezones and control over the competition. Sure, it will be below the top of the food chain of France and England (Super Rugby is anyway). But it won't be at the bottom. We will be able, in fact need to be able to import players to improve the competition.

Stop crying. This is the way forward.

 

[Twoilms]

Plenty of people have to work where there employer tells them. If these guys are putting their hand out for big money, then it goes with the territory. Plenty of AFL players have to move interstate as a result of the draft.

Any centralised contract system (which I think you favour) would surely mean that the ARU would allocate players equally to the different super teams?

Plus it's sure as shit easier to move from Melbourne to Sydney than Melbourne to Toulon

 

[Micheal]

When you say 'most of us,' what you mean is Rebels fans... because this would be terrible for us Brumbies supporters.

It would also eventually destroy both teams.

I interpret "most of us" to mean everyone bar irrational Rebels supporters and (irrational or not) Brumbies fans.

 

[Slim 293]

I interpret "most of us" to mean everyone bar irrational Rebels supporters and (irrational or not) Brumbies fans.

Thankfully it's not going to happen....... there's probably a good 20 pages of this thread to discuss why it's a bad idea.

 

[Twoilms]

Super Rugby will come to an end anyway.

5 teams, 4 teams, or 3 teams. The bloated season, 4 continent model is dead.


Wrong.

But it's almost inevitable.


Super Rugby doesn't generate much revenue. Sorry to break that news.


Be aware that losing "Super Rugby" is not the same as never being able
to play New Zealand teams (or South African teams, if that's your thing) again. Any transnational club comp needs to be shorter and sharper with fewer teams than the old Supe which drags on and on with barely a care.

The bulk of the season needs continuity of matches within watchable timezones and control over the competition. Sure, it will be below the top of the food chain of France and England (Super Rugby is anyway) but it won't be at the bottom. We will be able, in fact need to be able to import players to improve the competition.

Stop crying. This is the way forward.

Wasn't crying, just saying you are wrong. I agree Super Rugby is dying. But that's it. New Zealand won't play us. They have absolutely no interest in playing us. They want the Saffas. If we leave they will not follow.

Any competition we start on our own will generate a significant amount less revenue than Super Rugby. If Super Rugby doesnt generate much now, how much can we expect to generate without European TV money largely garnered by the Saffas? Yeah fuck-all.

Once the money leaves so do all our fucking players. We are left with players who cant make it elsewhere and are therefore shit. The competition is therefore shit. Look at A-league. If any of those players could make it in Europe they would be there and the games are barely watchable.

Be assured the death of Super Rugby is not a good thing for us.

 

[Braveheart81]

Plenty of people have to work where there employer tells them. If these guys are putting their hand out for big money, then it goes with the territory. Plenty of AFL players have to move interstate as a result of the draft.

Any centralised contract system (which I think you favour) would surely mean that the ARU would allocate players equally to the different super teams?

The top up contracts are designed to keep players in the country. If you wanted to live in Sydney or Brisbane because that is your home and your Australian contract option was to move to Canberra or Perth, the offer of a bigger contract in France, England or Japan might be more tempting.

Players do have to move interstate in the AFL due to the draft. They also don't have the option to take up a lucrative offer overseas.

A draft in Super Rugby could surely only work if the minimum wage was higher. It's fine for fully contracted players, but all teams have a bunch of players on levels below that and it is not nearly enough to demand that someone moves interstate if they want that option.

Even an EPS contract probably isn't enough to suggest to someone that if they want to play professional rugby, they have to be drafted to the team that picks them and go there for that money.

Any situation the ARU comes up with won't be designed in a way that will make it harder to keep the key Wallabies in Australia.

 

[Micheal]

Thankfully it's not going to happen... there's probably a good 20 pages of this thread to discuss why it's a bad idea.

I don't think discussion, here or otherwise, has caused anyone to believe its a bad idea.

In fact, even Rebels fans are starting to say makes the most sense.

Across almost all metrics, apart from history, the ACT doesn't deserve to have a Super rugby team (or, at the very least, no more claim to a team than Melbourne or Perth).

Just because the ARU has ruled it out doesn't mean its a "bad" idea. They've shown on multiple occassions that their judgement is fallible (to put it politely).

The ARU has ruled it out because a large amount of auctoritas in public discourse / decision making about rugby have utterly clouded perspectives stemming from their association with the club.

 

[blues recovery]

When you say 'most of us,' what you mean is Rebels fans... because this would be terrible for us Brumbies supporters.

It would also eventually destroy both teams.

The post that is exactly why the game in this country is rooted .
Politics and narrow mindedness .
How would a team structured properly commercially and more importantly playing a highly competitive brand of Rugby and that makes integration with their stakeholder communities a high priority destroy both teams . And by the way it would only be one team .

 

[FiveStarStu]

When you say 'most of us,' what you mean is Rebels fans... because this would be terrible for us Brumbies supporters.



It would also eventually destroy both teams.

The original post referred to Rebels supporters so yes, that's exactly what I was doing.