Oh and Melbourne new club in 2011

I’m not sure how Queensland comes into that.

I would like to see a system were the ARU top-ups (which I undertsand are the majority of the salaries) are increased by 25% for players that were developed in that province. This would force WA Rugby and ACT Rugby to invest more in their own player development pathways.

The move to the Super 15 has caused Hickey to suggest the squad will have to be the larger number we had this year to cope with the longer season, but I don’t know if this means the cut for next year won’t go ahead.

If it does happen, the Reds should snap these boys up. Even if they aren’t 1st XV players, and NSW is not hanging onto them, they are still decent players. NSW’s problem has always been it can’t hang onto every good player it produces locally. The Brumbies and Force are happy for that.

The Reds have a tendency to recruit their own, but there is a history of NSW players going to the Reds to get a start (and vice versa sometimes).

Given the Reds major issues with depth, and having to blood new players with very little experience just to keep a full team on the park this year, the tahs loss may very well be a great gain for the Reds to help bolster their squad.

If we end up with Playford & Co in Reds jerseys putting tries on us next year, I’ll be spewing!!!! But it’ll be good for Australian rugby.

Traditionally the Brumbies have not poached established players from other provinces, transfers have been only of young players or those who couldn’t get a start elsewhere. (There have been exceptions of course – Giteau is a Brumbie anyway, he’s just been on holiday, and Moore was a trade for the Faingaa twins).

As a Brumbies fan I would like to see that continue – it’s what makes the culture. I would much prefer us to keep Chapman and Salvi and for Elsom to go to the Reds and O’Connor to stay with the Force. The team will be competitive anyway.

The ACT and Tahs can.

Reds – Latham, Roe, Croft
Tahs – Waugh, Burke (would have stayed but was let go)

There are more for each, but I’m in a rush. Smith staying at the ACT springs to mind too.

There are some players who will hang around for loyalty even though they could have earned more elsewhere or in Europe.

I don’t know that it is the younger players that are more “mercenary”. They tend to be the ones that are trying to break into an established side, so they will go elsewhere to do so. That was really the problem with the Reds when the Force started up. They nicked a few starts, but the main thing they stole was their depth. The players that took the chance to go to the Force and step up (Pocock, Brown, O’Young, etc) were all fringe players. But not having them to fall back on, for the Reds, has lengthened their slump when the Lathams, Roes and Crofts left or were injured.

Part of the problem is also the loyalty shown to players by the team(s). You can hardly blame blokes like Hewat for going to Europe when the only thing keeping him out of the Wallabies was Knuckles and some pity pick (I’ll steal Hemjay’s term are recycle it) leaguies. I know some didn’t rate him, but he was top points scorer in S14, and never got a look in Robbed!

Anyway, I think you’ve highlighted the difference in culture and why the Tahs are chokers and underperformers. They will accept being the best Australian team. The brumbies want to be the best in the whole comp!

Link suggests that the Brumbies have lost their culture. Given the more frequent movement of younger players in search of the best deal, I think that in some way all teams are losing their culture to a degree as the team becomes a workplace rather than a ‘team’.

I take your points. But look at it from a players point of view. Is it fair that the choice of a playes own team, team mates and location be taken out of their hands? And what happens if a monopoly naturally develops – i.e. a team for whatever reason becomes a team of world-beaters. Do you then rip that team apart and distribute its players elsewhere?

I usually find the NFL, NBA, etc. drafts bizarre with players traded like bits of horse-flesh.

I guess the salary cap concept is designed to be the happy medium and I don’t have a problem with the salary cap concept. Nor do I have a problem with a player earning a few (alright, a lot of) bucks on the side through sponsorship, ARU topups, etc. It all comes down to where the lines are drawn and how well they are policed. I’d love to see the figures for each of the provinces players.

As for Tahs buying leaguies, that was as much supported by the ARU for publicity, as it was for any on field benefits.

Anyone who knows anything about ACT rugby will know that because of the tiny corporate dollar in town, they do not, and can not offer the sorts of big dollar deals that the Force and Tahs can. Hence the persistent rumours that the Brumbies will move to Victoria for financial reasons.

Craig, the topic of this article is about assuming Elsom and O’Connor are going to be signed by the Brumbies. If signing arguably the best 6 and possibly 10 in the world, as well as the best up and comer isn’t opening up the cheque book big time then what is.

If you asked the Tahs 5 years ago that buying some League players could contribute to them being ethe best Aussie S14 side for that period then they’d probably take it, likewise the buying of players for the Brumbies now.

By the way, I can understand the Brumbies might be Elsom’s preference, but i hope the Reds get him..

Actually, I think we probably have more than enough players for five teams. But they are not visible because there are no development mechanisms in place to have brought them up to the required level. There are only four professional teams of thirty odd players so, unsurprisingly, if all the top players congregate in one or two teams the rest look thin.

It gets similarly thin if they are spread over five teams. It doesn’t mean that there aren’t people with the talent to replace them, just that everyone outside of the favoured few has had part-time training at a semi-professional level (at best) and are going to need a lot of work. Once there are five teams it will look just as gloomy, because there is nothing underlying the Super teams.

The Reds are the result of a shallow player pool, but not in the way some people think. We have enough players for four teams, but we dont have enough when talent is highly concentrated. And then once you are a dud, its hard to break that cycle. And then the perceptions are entrenched, and young players developed in an area leave without even considering their home state/territory.

Blues – Northland, Harbour and Auckland City

Waikato – Counties Manukau, Waikato and Bay of Plenty

Hurricanes – Taranaki, Manawatu, Hawke Bay and Wellington

Crusaders – Tasman and Canterbury

Highlanders – Otago and Southland

Should players not be selected for their home franchise they are then placed into the draft from which the other franchises take their pick if they so require the talent.
Players do switch provincial allegiances to give themselves a better shot at super rugby but it is nowhere near as common as the movement in Australia. Willie Ripia is originally from the Waikato but he was up against just to get NPC game time let alone Super rugby so he signed with Taranaki got alot of game time in one of the most competitive truly domestic competitions in the world which in turn made him available for the Canes.

Until Aus has a domestic competition it would be a little hard to model itself on the NZ framework but it does highlight how it could be done. As it now stands every single NZ franchise has made a final and the majority of our teams are very competitive as our best play against each other week in week out.

Brumbies fans will be licking their lips but is it in selfishness and against the greater good of Australian rugby?