Super Rugby needs clearer trade rules
Roar Guru By EP - Rugbywits, 15 Apr 2011 Elisha Pearce is a Roar Guru
- Tagged:
- Melbourne Rebels, Rugby Union, Super Rugby
The rugby union world has come alight with the news that Kurtley Beale will move to the Melbourne Rebels for 2012. It has also been suggested that James O’Connor and Quade Cooper are targets.
Some of the debating points relate to whether there are moral reasons movement should be announced mid-season, how the Force and Rebels have depleted the playing talents of the other teams, and what can be done to make things fairer.
There need to be well-defined rules regarding player movement.
It’s a given that players will move. They will sign contracts when the season is in full swing; make some rules for it.
The ARU and presumably SANZAR could say this – the off-season and then the month of June is the only time players under contract can be approached for a new contract.
Ensure there are clearly defined periods where this shuffle will happen, as in almost every other professional sport around the world. The periods need to be defined.
It’s not ideal that players will move or announce moves in season,so confine it to certain times of year. Do the best with what you’ve got. The mid-season contract period would instantly also turn into an annual month-long running advertisement for rugby.
Also, as for the Rebels and the Force draining talent indicates, there needs to be some sort of trade scheme in place.
Rugby needs to continue to strive to find its feet from an administration perspective. In relative terms it is still a new professional sport.
There are a few things that need to happen for this to work. First, sign players to contracts longer than two years. I don’t understand why more teams don’t do this more often.
Second, allow a compensation market for players who move between clubs in contract. If I was in a position of note at the Force a couple of years ago, I would have made O’Connor’s playing contract an offer he couldn’t refuse – for 5 years. Meaning he would still be on contract beyond 2012.
That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t release him if the circumstances were right, but the Rebels would need to offer some cash, another player, or sometime down the track, a draft pick for the deal to work out.
In relation to the draft idea – I think there will be one some day from the whispers around the place. It seems that the ARU is cutting back the money they pay the Australian representatives, both in player numbers and in dollar amount.
I think this is because they want players’ primary earnings to come from their Super Rugby teams. It’s a good plan.
Eventually the number of players paid by the ARU should be around 30-35 maximum. This will mean the Super teams will have to source finances and I believe there will be a cap put in place at some point also.
Also it seems they are aiming for a cap on the number of academy players signed. Somewhere down the track, a draft process could be used to help make the spread of talented youngsters more evenly amongst the teams.
All of this is a big change to the current system, but I believe there are great reasons to do so. Too many players are paid by the ARU, and that isn’t where they do most of their work. A tiered system of national contracts is the way to go, and ultimately a draft.
Here is how the player trading idea might work.
The Rebels have already signed Beale. Let’s say were confident they would be able to keep the services of Danny Cipriani if they could strengthen the side a little more. They could offer Gerrard and some cash as a straight swap for O’Connor and the chance to negotiate a contract with him. Or Gerrard and another young prospect might seal the deal.
The Rebels also want a second-rower – if they get a world-class one their forward pack would be brilliant. But they don’t think they can get one from the Northern Hemisphere. What about Andries Bekker from the Stormers?
The Rebels could offer Cipriani as an upgrade to Peter Grant at No. 10.
Yes, I know the good ol’ days were great, when players stayed put. But they don’t now. Rugby needs to compete for fans and talent in an open market and I believe the scenarios above show we can do so if we make a few guidelines and encourage teams to get the talent they need to succeed.
Recommend this story.
The Turkey 10
The Turkey 10 teams have now been selected, as Wild Turkey Bourbon's sport sponsorship kicks into the next exciting phase.
Choose which side you're going to support and get in the running to win $2,500!
Simply visit Wild Turkey Australia on Facebook for your chance to win.
Find out more.
- Explore:
- Melbourne Rebels, Rugby Union, Super Rugby
April 15th 2011 @ 7:51am
formeropenside said | April 15th 2011 @ 7:51am | Report comment
Amazing how this becomes a concern now that NSW actually lose a top-class player – rather than poach one from another province/State.
April 15th 2011 @ 8:08am
Wingersliketowatch said | April 15th 2011 @ 8:08am | Report comment
“Poach’ is a very strong word, FOP. ‘Acquire in a free market’ is another way of putting it. Kurtley was bought by a team coached by a former Waratahs coach . It’s just the way it is.
April 15th 2011 @ 8:37am
Jiggles said | April 15th 2011 @ 8:37am | Report comment
No one south of the Tweed was up in arms when AAC decided he wanted to go to the waratah’s about a month ago, but when NSW loose a star player (Heaven Forbid!!!) we have massive issue of disloyal players disrupting the teams season on our hand! Get a grip please and take that blue eye patch off!
If I was a quality outside back, the last team I would want to play for is NSW.
April 15th 2011 @ 8:56am
PeterK said | April 15th 2011 @ 8:56am | Report comment
it is LOSE not LOOSE (which is the opposite to tighten).
I agree there was no carry on when AAC or Mitchell or Barnes etc were attracted to the Tahs.
So there can be no basis for complaint re Beale going.
That said this article has merit re transfer windows , draft etc in light of the changes that the ARU are putting in place.
But it was poor timing since it would be seen as a poor reaction to losing (not loosing) Beale.
April 15th 2011 @ 9:24am
EP - Rugbywits said | April 15th 2011 @ 9:24am | Report comment
Jiggles, you’re right. Its because of a Waratahs player moving south that it got headlines. Thats just the way it is.
But what do you think about the suggestions I made?
Lets look at AAC…
If I were in Brumbies management, (lets face it, you or I have enough credible experience to be one of the key power-figures down there given the state of their current lot) there is no way I would have signed AAC to a contract that would allow him to become a free-agent in the near future. Considering that lets assume AAC is under contract and the Waratahs decide they want to be the big, bad, poachers from Bondi, what sort of compensation is AAC worth?
Yes, its a shame that it needs to be an NSW player to be seriously considered. But think of all the Reds that have left. Not all of them would be worthy of high compensation, but you could at least agree that in cash terms you’ve given enough players away to have already earnt enough to pay back the QLDRU debt to the ARU.
April 15th 2011 @ 9:38am
Jiggles said | April 15th 2011 @ 9:38am | Report comment
I saw that error after I posted, but thanks anyway Pete
!
The system is as efficient as it could be for the size of the game in Australia. A draft system would not be efficient as there simply are not enough positions being vacated year on year to justify a draft. How many players would be drafted? 10 perhaps?
Additionally I think the public would rather know players intentions straight away (or near straight away) rather than have a prolonged speculation for an entire season like the Abblett scenario in AFL. A trade window would just fuel speculation and create distractions for the teams.
We have to remember that these blokes are professionals, if KB decides to switch off now for the tah’s then his position in the wallabies will be in doubt which will impact on his future earning potential. Yes the fans may be disappointed, but they should realise KB will give his all for the tah’s this season, I am sure of that.
April 15th 2011 @ 11:27am
EP - Rugbywits said | April 15th 2011 @ 11:27am | Report comment
You’re probably right about the draft: 10 players maybe 15 would get drafted. Thats a great number. Maybe 3 rounds of picks.
But thats what we are talking about isn’t it? The top 10-15 players being evenly spread through out the competition so that all teams have a good chance.
The rest of the blokes would get signed onto short academy contracts like they are now?
April 15th 2011 @ 2:31pm
soapit said | April 15th 2011 @ 2:31pm | Report comment
i think literacy is just very high in nsw hence the amount of comments and articles about beale leaving compared to the rest.
April 15th 2011 @ 8:40am
Geoff Brisbane said | April 15th 2011 @ 8:40am | Report comment
Head hunted could be a better term. But free agents seem to be able to choose their own employment.
Reality is that the NSW or anyone else should have been talking to their players a lot earlier.
April 15th 2011 @ 9:30am
EP - Rugbywits said | April 15th 2011 @ 9:30am | Report comment
You are certainly correct. The Waratahs were dumb not to have Beale signed up for the rest of his life.
But thats what I’m saying Geoff.
Who knows why they didnt, maybe they couldn’t afford him. But this is the beauty of a trade system… watch this example.
NSW need Beale, Beale wants compensation and when Beale can’t be afforded NSW want compensation for the team that ends up nabbing him. Fair enough.
Wouldn’t this be the ideal scenario for all parties? –
1. In 2009 Beale signs a long term contract with the years of increased pay coming in 2011-2012 onward.
2. The Waratahs acknowledge that paying him the large amounts of money in the latter years of the contract are a bit much for them to balance their books.
3. Rebels need a world class player and ask for Beale – IN CONTRACT – and offer compensation. Lets say it was 500,000 cash and a draft pick. Or the Waratahs requested Kingi because Burgess is going and 200k.
4. Everyone is happy! Fans can complain, but in the end their team has something in return for their investment. The Waratahs had their player for a few years and get compensated for development (no matter what you think about Deans involvement) and also get to off-load the large contract. The Rebels are able to tie their high profile business investors to a high profile player and get their world class back on the field. The Waratahs even get a highly rated young prospect to try and develop into an important player.
Don’t you think that system is better than the current weird free for all we have now?
April 15th 2011 @ 9:52am
Jiggles said | April 15th 2011 @ 9:52am | Report comment
See my comment to Peter above. The fact of the matter is that no one likes seeing a popular player go, and yes I have seen a lot of that between 2000 – 2009 at the Reds. But currently the system is pretty efficient in my opinion. The QRU is broke, but many players wages are substantially 3rd party agreements up at Ballymore. I have it on good information, for example, that Digby Ioane’s QRU pay packet is around 70% 3rd party. The only way a trade window could work is if it is global, and national unions allow players to represent the national team despite plying their trade in an international market. But pigs may fly before that happens.
Additionally I actually prefer this shorter term contract style the ARU is going for. It is a better system to represent a players market worth on current form. Giteau’s last contract was very long term and also very large, and his packet was justified by on field performances for about 3 months of that contract. Imagine if KB signed up for a 4 year deal worth $1m a year and then played so badly that he didn’t justify selection for the wallabies. What a waste. Additionally the RUPA (is that the players association acronym?) would never allow for long term contracts to be performance based, so hence the ARU moved to shorter term contracts to force the issue of on field performance into contract negotiations, which is fair enough in my opinion.
April 15th 2011 @ 11:24am
EP - Rugbywits said | April 15th 2011 @ 11:24am | Report comment
Remember, the changes occuring are going to be more and more like Ioane’s contract.
We aren’t talking about tying up the ARU’s money in long term contracts here. we are talking about the super teams playing much more for their players than they currently do. You wouldn’t get 1mil a year of ARU money tied up in a deal with Giteau that isn’t warranted. That is a good thing. And makes the longer term contracts easier to swallow.
April 15th 2011 @ 11:42am
Jiggles said | April 15th 2011 @ 11:42am | Report comment
I don’t see how the topics are mutually exclusive. The ability to pull a big ARU contract will reflect a players worth to Australian Rugby, and therefore he will be able to command more from 3rd parties at the provincial – or franchise if you prefer – level.
April 15th 2011 @ 9:02am
Brett McKay said | April 15th 2011 @ 9:02am | Report comment
EP, presuming he stays in rugby, Quade Cooper will be playing for the Reds next year. Although he only signed a one year deal with the ARU for 2011, he signed a two year deal with the Reds. So we can rule him out as a Rebels target for next year at least..
On this topic, yes, it’s less than ideal that discussions and announcements happen mid-season, but it’s all part of the CBA with the RUPA now (as it also is in the NRL with the RLPA) and there’s more chance of me replacing Quade Cooper as Wallaby no.10 as there is of getting a player’s union to give up anything they’ve had in place for several years. I’m afraid we’re just going to have to get used to it…
April 15th 2011 @ 9:18am
EP - Rugbywits said | April 15th 2011 @ 9:18am | Report comment
You don’t think the ARU could initiate a free agency and trade system Brett?
April 15th 2011 @ 9:52am
Brett McKay said | April 15th 2011 @ 9:52am | Report comment
We’ve essentially got free agency now EP, witness Beale’s seemingly last minute relocation, and the chase for James O’Connor. Players are free to go wherever they want in Australia and maintain eligibility. But I don’t think the RUPA will allow a trade or draft system because somewhere along the line, someone MIGHT have to play somewhere they don’t want to.
I made the comment to Sheek yesterday that I’d like to see the ARU pay Beale, JOC, Cooper, AAC/Mitchell and say, Toomua an extra $100K to be the face of their franchises, but do be the face and get the cash, they couldn’t play together. But again, the players union would never go for anything that prevents a player going wherever he wants…
April 15th 2011 @ 10:18am
CizzyRascal said | April 15th 2011 @ 10:18am | Report comment
Going off topic, but would Toomua really be the best guy for the face of the franchise? Putting a lot of pressure on his shoulders at a young age.
I know O’Connor is the same age, but they really are on different levels, rugby wise.
April 15th 2011 @ 10:20am
Brett McKay said | April 15th 2011 @ 10:20am | Report comment
Cizzy, it was really just for the sake of naming someone from the Brumbies, there’s no science involved…
April 15th 2011 @ 10:43am
CizzyRascal said | April 15th 2011 @ 10:43am | Report comment
Ah right fair enough. Read too much into it.
To be fair though, thinking about it, who do the Brumbies have that could fill that role next term when both Giteau and AAC are both gone?
April 15th 2011 @ 11:13am
Brett McKay said | April 15th 2011 @ 11:13am | Report comment
Toomua
April 15th 2011 @ 11:20am
EP - Rugbywits said | April 15th 2011 @ 11:20am | Report comment
So the RUPA is really holding back our game a lot more than I thought…
It is Friday and I’m tired, but sometimes I wonder whether the different parties with a stake in Rugby will ever get it together so they can all run themselves like a professional organisation, grow the game and enjoy the support of new generations.
Im not talking about 10 year contracts like baseball here. Obviously injuries and age play a bigger part in rugby and make really really long term deals a no-no. And I’m not talking about 50 or even 2million dollar compensation payments for a player to be traded. I’m talking about fair compensation for a team losing a player. But you’re right, if its the RUPA who are making it impossible to sign a guy up for 5 years then I understand how this would be very hard to get off the ground.
Further to the players not playing where they want… its not like they could be forced to negotiate with another team. Thats how a trade works in lots of sports. Team approached another team for permission and agrees to compensation should permission be granted. THEN the negotiation occurs with the player to see if they can be persuaded to leave.
April 15th 2011 @ 12:18pm
Brett McKay said | April 15th 2011 @ 12:18pm | Report comment
EP, sometimes I wonder if these stakeholders ever realise they’re actually on the same page in a lot of things. There’s all number of things that could be done for the betterment of the game (to use a made-up word), but get knocked back by either side of the divide for seemingly trival matters.
The RUPA – and any pro sport players union, in fact – would love 5 and 10 year contracts, hell, they’d have “term of your natural life” contracts if they could, but then they’d still want get-out clauses in them, in case a coach leaves, or the jersey colours change, of the grass length exceeds 30mm, or if the player just changes his/her mind. They want cake and eatage.
I can understand the restraint of trade objections to drafts and the like, but you’d think that a realisation would exist somewhere that without the talent spread across the teams, however that spread is achieved, you will end up with strong and weak teams. It all becomes a catch 22, because weak teams can’t attract players to make them stronger.
So, you either need a draft or a salary cap, and I guess we’ll see where this new salary structure in Aust rugby takes us. The SR teams are now essentially operating with salary caps, just that now the old Firepower tactics have been legalised..
April 15th 2011 @ 3:09pm
EP - Rugbywits said | April 15th 2011 @ 3:09pm | Report comment
True Brett, they trip each other up fairly easily.
I said in an email to the editors that this was pretty similar to some of the other stuff thats being said out there at the moment, but it seems that not many people really are saying it.
It seems the administration of the game is able to continue along its current short-sighted path and continue to block avenues for fair rugby and growth because the fans arent really willing to suggest change because of x, y, z reasons. Ther are always good reasons as to why something wont work. but Im saying that our current system of a free for all and lack of fair compensation to teams that nurture talent could be fixed.
Once again, the global warming parallel. Of course the first go at it isn’t gonna solve everyones problem. but steps need to b taken and refined where possible to suit our cause.
April 15th 2011 @ 9:29am
Ian Whitchurch said | April 15th 2011 @ 9:29am | Report comment
If you dont want players to be free agents, dont let them go out of contract.
April 15th 2011 @ 9:51am
sheek said | April 15th 2011 @ 9:51am | Report comment
This nonsense of players & coaches signing with other clubs (across all codes) when the season isn’t even at the half-way stage is ridiculous. I would even suggest it is obscene.
No dealing, especially no announcements should even be contemplated before the half-way stage of the season in any code. Then you might have a 1-2 week window for trading & announcements. Then it’s heads down again until the season is over.
There would have to be severe penalties for players, agents & clubs operating outside the governed windows of opportunity.
Most football codes are by their very nature – team orientated. TEAM – “Together Everyone Achieves More”. All this trading mid-season, indeed early-season, is an insult to the ethos of team sports. It is putting the individual before the team. It sucks…..
April 15th 2011 @ 10:04am
CizzyRascal said | April 15th 2011 @ 10:04am | Report comment
Yeah but when are they supposed to be signing for new teams? It might be okay in Australia to do it post season, but if they are signing abroad, they need be decided before the end of competition as they need a full pre-season with their new team.
April 15th 2011 @ 10:44am
sheek said | April 15th 2011 @ 10:44am | Report comment
Well, as I suggested, you can have a 1-2 window just after the half-way mark of the season. Frankly, I’m opposed to the whole idea of in-season trades, but that’s my compromise…..
April 15th 2011 @ 11:36am
EP - Rugbywits said | April 15th 2011 @ 11:36am | Report comment
Haha, thanks for firing up Sheek!
Don’t you think having some rules, compensation and specific dates makes things better?
As it stands we are pretending to be professional, but really just letting whatever happens, happen.
You could be right about the timeline. Offseason and 1-2 weeks could be plenty given the size of the player population we are talking about here. Plenty of time. We ARE at mid-season though really. Almost half way through super rugby and super teams are the teams that will more and more be paying the players wages.
I think my suggestions are going about as well as suggesting something be done about climate change…
We all know something needs to be done, but there are too many barriers. *Tosses player trades and climate change into too hard basket*.
April 15th 2011 @ 12:06pm
Brett McKay said | April 15th 2011 @ 12:06pm | Report comment
EP, Sheek, the problem with announcement windows, and restrictions on when negotiations can and can’t take place, is that they will only, really, stop the honest managers. And if we’re honest, the notion of honest player managers agents is up there with the old classic ‘army intelligence’ and my personal favourite, ‘ARU Marketing’.
And, again, it’s not going to stop Lordy’s “selfish, boneheaded leaks” at each club either…
April 15th 2011 @ 12:14pm
EP - Rugbywits said | April 15th 2011 @ 12:14pm | Report comment
So if there are rules, couldn’t they be enforced?
All it takes is the team who’s player is under contract to report some poor conduct.
April 15th 2011 @ 12:25pm
Brett McKay said | April 15th 2011 @ 12:25pm | Report comment
of course they could be enforced, just as they could be broken…
You’d just end up with situations like the NRL had with it’s old June 30 deadline, where players couldn’t talk to other clubs until after then. But it didn’t stop the managers ringing other clubs and saying, “we obviously can’t talk about this for another three months, but if I hypothetically said Darren Lockyer was thinking about testing the market, would you guys be hypothetically interested?”
And then the boneheaded leaks would emerge, and you’d end up with Beale going to the Rebels….
April 15th 2011 @ 1:23pm
sheek said | April 15th 2011 @ 1:23pm | Report comment
Brett/EP,
I guess what stands out like a sore thumb, as EP alludes to, is the lack of professionalism from the administrative/governing bodies.
I guess professionalism in this case means these custodians of the game have failed to impose themselves on clubs, players, coaches, agents, etc by stipulating strict guidelines on how & when to trade.
Of course, you won’t ever stop the “loose tongues”, but the problems appear to go deeper than that, as we have seen across all the codes these past few weeks.
April 15th 2011 @ 2:25pm
soapit said | April 15th 2011 @ 2:25pm | Report comment
the could probably police it but it would take significant resources which would be better spent on the more rugby focused part of their role.
April 15th 2011 @ 10:10am
Fairplay said | April 15th 2011 @ 10:10am | Report comment
I agree with Sheek’s comments. This carnival has been going on too long and must have an unsettling effect on teams with only half a season gone.
The ARU needs an immediate complete overhaul of the system and the Rebels should be publicly reprimanded. They were given a better deal than the Force when they started, in that they could import players from day one. I thought spreading the teams to all States was to make Rugby Union an Australian wide sport and improve the base for choosing Wallabies. I am still confused if the Force is now allowed the same Rebel terms.
April 15th 2011 @ 10:12am
Brett McKay said | April 15th 2011 @ 10:12am | Report comment
It’s probably worth mentioning that another problem (perhaps the biggest) in this whole debate is the “selfish, boneheaded leaks” at each club that David Lord reminded us of yesterday.
I wouldn’t mind betting that Beale did want to keep his move quiet, save for doing the right thing and telling his team-mates, and would have been happy to just get on with playing rugby. Yet now, he’ll be spending the rest of the season discussing next year. And he didn’t even make the announcement…
April 15th 2011 @ 10:53am
Nick_KIA said | April 15th 2011 @ 10:53am | Report comment
“rugby union world has come alight” – er, no a few in Sydney are a bit bent out of shape. We’re still Ok here in NZ. Fairly certain UK/SA/Europeans are not too bothered.
But generally I don’t understand why this is a big issue. As someone else said, if you don’t want players to be in negotiations in the middle of the season, sign them up till the end of the season and put it in their contract that they can’t negotiate.
April 15th 2011 @ 11:41am
EP - Rugbywits said | April 15th 2011 @ 11:41am | Report comment
Yeah fair enough Nick. Sorry to assume.
What would you think about the idea of compensation though?
Do you think that it would be an ideal situation that the Highlanders get something when Israel Dagg moves to the Crusaders?
April 15th 2011 @ 11:53am
Jiggles said | April 15th 2011 @ 11:53am | Report comment
EP I don’t get this obsession with compensation either. Why would the ARU be bothered if, let’s say a star QLDer like JOC, plays for WA, ACT, NSW or MELB? As far as they are concerned he is still going to turn out in a Gold Jumper from the end of May until November and Australian Rugby is no worse off for it.
April 15th 2011 @ 12:15pm
Darwin Stubbie said | April 15th 2011 @ 12:15pm | Report comment
Completely different system in place .. the horse trading is done at a level below S15 … Highlanders have zero propriety interest in Dagg as he’s a Hawkes Bay product who was drafted into the Highlanders because he wasn’t required by the Hurricanes, who have first rights over him given HB is part of the Hurricanes catchment …
what he’s then done (because he wanted to swap to the Crusaders) is to swap provinces HB to Canterbury – however, because he wants to remain a HB player (and there’s a salary cap and Canterbury couldn’t probably afford him), part of the deal is he’s loaned back to HB for the NPC … I’m sure Thomson was considering something similar when there was talk of him moving upto the Crusaders and there are plenty of similar examples ..
The compensation thing is interesting and could open a large can of worms – what say the non tied development players that the oz teams are permitted to sign under the marquee provsions … Harris would be the recent example – if the ARU opened up and permitted transfer / compensation payments surely it wouldn’t be a stretch that say NZRFU or SAFU look at putting something in place if any of these guys go onto Wallaby level ..
April 15th 2011 @ 3:06pm
EP - Rugbywits said | April 15th 2011 @ 3:06pm | Report comment
I’d have nothing wrong with an Australian club or Wallabies having to pay a fee to the NZ club that Harris played for if we were to select him for the Wallabies down the track.
April 15th 2011 @ 2:27pm
soapit said | April 15th 2011 @ 2:27pm | Report comment
thing is theres just not enough superstars around that they can really start dictating terms like that to players. a player would just go somewhere else and you’d feel stupid missing out on a star just because of a minor contract clause issue.