What does loyalty really mean in rugby these days?
Columnist By Clyde Rathbone, 4 Jul 2012
- Tagged:
- All Blacks, David Pocock, Rugby Union, Sonny Bill Williams, Super Rugby, wallabies
4,712 reads
New Zealand's All Blacks wing Sonny Bill Williams vies with Argentina's (No. 8) Leonardo Senatore. AAP Image/AFP, William West
Related coverage
- Rugby Union news
- Super Rugby news
- Wallabies news
- New Zealand All Blacks news
- Sonny Bill Williams news
- 2013 Wallabies squad news
I’ve observed with some interest the attention that Sonny Bill Williams’ reported relocation to league has garnered. If nothing else, it’s obvious that opinion is deeply divided with regards to Williams and his career decisions.
A turncoat, traitor and a money hungry mercenary were all labels that were sent the way of SBW back in 2008. And now it seems that some in rugby union are ready to repeat that dose of vitriol.
Ryan O’Connell: Is Sonny Bill worth the money?
All this had me thinking about loyalty.
What does it mean in the context of a rugby career and has it been devalued by professionalism.
Is an athlete who remains at a single club more loyal than one who explores multiple opportunities to ply his trade across the globe?
I don’t think the answer is as simple as it might intuitively seem.
Professionalism has meant that players are increasingly seen as commodities, they are employed as performers, entertainers if you like. As such, they are repeatedly subjected to demands that nobody who was not paid would tolerate.
And let’s be clear on that point.
Rugby, at least at the elite level, is not a healthy sport. While players are very athletic, the trade off is a diet of anti-inflammatory meds and off-season surgeries that take their toll over the long run.
Interestingly, we don’t tend to question the loyalties of less talented players who make smart career moves to new teams. And yet the games’ superstars are held to a different standard.
They are expected to remain at franchises despite an endless stream of enticing offers when they come off contract.
In the case of SBW it seems that he’s given his all to each of Toulon, Crusaders, Chiefs and All Blacks. He has fulfilled his commitments in every sense of the word. If playing rugby league is what his heart desires should he not be loyal to himself first?
To stay in rugby out of guilt or pressure from fans would be a particularly insincere action.
And so it is that loyalty is really about values.
Our values dictate our decisions when we’re presented with options.
Ironically, many players appear loyal when really they’re comfortable. They become part of an environment that no longer demands continuous improvement and the thought of having to reinvent themselves at a new club scares them.
Other times players move clubs precisely because they recognise the importance of new challenges.
Of course, money plays a roll in all of this but it’s rarely the case that players transfer to new teams on the basis of dollars alone.
And nothing makes it easier for clubs to attract world-class talent than on field success. In my experience most players will settle for less money in exchange for being part of a winning culture.
Another player currently weighing up his rugby future is David Pocock.
The Wallaby skipper is being pursued by a number of teams; most notably the Brumbies. It’s been mooted that his loyalty to the Force will keep him in Perth.
Relocating to Canberra would not make David any more or less loyal than a decision to remain in Perth.
It’s likely that David will be offered more money to play his rugby in WA, but I’ve little doubt he would grow more as a player and as a leader in the Brumbies environment.
Laurie Fisher is widely regarded as one of the best breakdown experts in rugby coaching and Jake White would accelerate David’s already impressive growth into leadership.
My money has Pocock running out for the Force next year, but as a Brumbies fan, I’d love to see him relocate to the ACT and play a central role in chasing some Super Rugby silverware with the Brums.
On another note, I want to give a shout out to Stirling Mortlock and Julian Huxley.
Both will play heir final super rugby matches in coming weeks and both are fantastic footballers and genuinely good blokes. Snork played during a golden era of Brumbies and Wallaby rugby and produced some amazing efforts, none more so than ‘that try’ in the 2003 World Cup Semi.
Hux was an often underrated but extremely skilful player who inspired us all by overcoming brain cancer.
Cheers to the next chapter fellas!
Former Wallaby Clyde Rathbone has returned to Super Rugby with the ACT Brumbies, following an injury-forced retirement from all forms in 2009. He writes guest columns for The Roar, and will blog his journey back to professional rugby in 2013.
Looking to join The Roar team? We're searching for an experienced Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. Yes, this does mean you get to work with the site all day long! If you're a digital media sales star, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
Passionate about your union? Then sign up to The Roar's brand new daily union email, delivering Roaring articles directly to you day-in, day-out. You'll love it!
Click here to join now!
- Explore:
- All Blacks, David Pocock, Rugby Union, Sonny Bill Williams, Super Rugby, wallabies
July 4th 2012 @ 2:52am
Johnno said | July 4th 2012 @ 2:52am | Report comment
-Pro Sport money talks big time. So if you want Loyalty some say loyalty is dead, and money talks.
But SBW did sacrifice big money in French rugby for a once in a lifetime world cup in his home nation NZ, as did many other AB’s.
Frans stein took big money in eiurope for a few seasons and is now back, Dan Carter had a sabbatical in French rugby, as did Mark Gasnier. Craig Gower got offered big money and played french rugby for a while and did play for Italy.
So world cups do defiantly motivate players and do talk. Samoa players had to even pay there own airfares to the world cup and the nation had a telethon in Samoa to raise money for the team and they still went in NZ, despite all the problems that went on, and they played with total pride.
July 4th 2012 @ 2:52am
Matt said | July 4th 2012 @ 2:52am | Report comment
Rugby players as a group, just as society in the greater scale, has a variety of individuals with differing opinions of selflessness and loyalty. It often falls to the ‘leaders’ to be held to higher standards when it comes to loyalty. In NZ you have guys like Conrad Smith, Richie McCaw and Dan Carter who have played for one team and one team only, particularly because they have been senior leaders in their teams as they have moved towards superstardom. They, like David Pocock, have an appreciation of why loyalty is a special trait to have, one which can illustrate that a player isn’t just an athlete, but a leader for younger players and a foundation around which a team can be built.
For the fringe players, who might not find themselves in leadership roles due to their particular personalities or lack of leadership then loyalty doesn’t tend to figure as strongly in decisions.
Fans (and probably players too) tend to respect athletes who realise that they have benefitted from being given a chance in a particular team and therefore stick around to give back to the next generation of players. It usually is a matter of them earning ‘enough’ and realising that life is sometimes worth more than just a number in the bank account.
In the case of SBW, as well as guys like James O’Connor and Drew Mitchell, you get the feeling that they will move wherever they see the best short term opportunity. In these cases they walk away from teams (sometimes on multiple occasions) to achieve what it is that they as players specifically desire at the time. Each of these three examples could have been long term leaders at any of the teams they played for. O’Connor still has that chance at the Rebels, but I don’t imagine fans would be at all surprised to see him move to another team (probably the Reds) once his contract expires.
SBW is the prime example of ‘me first’, although like O’Connor and Mitchell fans are happy when he joins ‘their’ team due to the skills they bring. But the track record suggests that SBW will move on as fast as he arrived, leaving the club with a short term gain rather than a lasting legacy. And it is the legacy of loyal players that is what makes them different, they see the long term impact they can have rather than the short term gains they can recieve.
July 4th 2012 @ 3:55am
The Werewolf said | July 4th 2012 @ 3:55am | Report comment
A very thoughtful article and one that is very relevant to the game today. How refreshing!
I think as players are subject to being publicly criticised by fans, by being dropped from teams by coaches, and by having their contracts not renewed by management why shouldn’t they have the right to move their careers where-ever they fell it should go?
The only example where it should not be viewed okay is if it is in the middle of the season. Say a player oh i don’t know, lets call him Bonny Will Silliams played for a club under contract yet decided to sneak out in the middle of the night and play for more money in a different country that would be going too far and would be unforgivable. Its nice to know where the line is drawn.
July 4th 2012 @ 5:29am
biltongbek said | July 4th 2012 @ 5:29am | Report comment
As a former South African under 19 world cup winning captain I reckon old Clyde here should know better than anyone that loyalty unfortunately means little in the professional era.
The reality regardless of how we feel about it is that professional players have to look after themselves and their futures, and if it means that a guy like Jaque Fourie arguably one of the best outside Centers in world rugby forsakes his country in his prime to go make millions in Japan or anywhere else there is an enviable understanding why they do it.
The other reality is that SA as an example has more players earning money overseas than inside their own country, simply due to the fact that there are limited opportunities in their own country.
The underlying problem though isn’t only the fact that players leave to play professional club rugby in other countries (which weakens domestic rugby) but the repercussions of other countries seeing opportunities in “poaching” players for the purpose of capping them in their “new adopted country” within only three years of residency.
I cahat on a british forum regularly and it is scary to see how European countries now look towards younger players and contract them under what they call “project players” which by implication says, if you are good enough in three years we want you to don our national colours.
That is where in my view the “ploughing with another man’s cattle” becomes unacceptable.
I have no qualm with our players going to ply a trade elsewhere, but I have a serious problem with our players being “poached” as “projects”
Wher is the pride for a fan if his team has to recruit outside their system to gain parity in rugby Union on an international level.
How do you identify with a team that by all accounts in a few years may be represented by multi nationals?
If you look at a guy like Mouritz Botha who left SA as a normal guy (not as a recognised rugby player) and goes to england to develop and earn the right to be recognised as good enough to represent England, by all means, cudo’s to him for doing the hard work and benefitting from the English club system.
But to “scout” already developed or recognised qulaity youngsters for the sole purpose of benefitting you r national team is just unacceptable in my view.
July 4th 2012 @ 6:40am
Rath said | July 4th 2012 @ 6:40am | Report comment
Biltongbek,
Things are rarely as black and white as they seem.
I’m comfortable with my decision and the loyalty that it represented so I disagree that loyalty means little in the professional era. Also, I captained South Africa @ U21 level not U19.
My decision to relocate to Australia was often labelled as disloyal. Among the printable things I was called, traitor and turncoat featured strongly. In reality my decision was based upon staying true to my values, and that is a defining quality of loyalty.
As a result of my decision my family has relocated to Australia, my wife, parents and brothers have been afforded a lifestyle, opportunities and freedom that would never have been possible in South Africa. And my kids will be raised in a place that I feel provides them with the best chance to get the most out of themselves and their lives. My decision was based upon a multitude of factors from lifestyle to adventure and security.
Two years after my relocation to Australia my family experienced a home invasion, my mother is incredibly fortunate to be alive today after she was thrown 4 meters from our homes balcony onto concrete. It was not long after that experience that my family joined me in Canberra.
Your description of players being poached fails to acknowledge that ultimately players choose where they play. My grandmother was born in Australia and my great grandfather fought for Australia in the first world war. This gave me the opportunity to play in Australia that non of my South African team-mates had.
What you call being poached as “projects” is in reality an opportunity given to a person to dictate the direction of their life. Assuming you have relocated to Australia it appears that you have enjoyed the opportunity and choices that life presented you. It seems somewhat ironic that you take issue with another person being presented with similar opportunities and choices.
As to scouting “already developed players”. Can you point to an example of this? I developed more as a rugby player in my first year in Australia than I had during my entire career in SA. Anyone who knows how much hard work is required to ‘make it’ in professional rugby knows that there are no free lunches. One does not leave a country of birth and simply walk into another national team, at least not amongst nations where rugby is taken seriously.
The professional era has presented modern day players with far more choices than in generations gone by. And having a multitude of choices is the mark of a privileged life. It’s a key measure by which a person can determine their own destiny.
Cheers,
Rath
July 4th 2012 @ 6:45am
mania said | July 4th 2012 @ 6:45am | Report comment
nice come back rath. yes ultimately its the player that has to make the final decision. who cares if fans are hurt because of some percieved ownership of players? most important is self then family.
July 4th 2012 @ 7:35am
mikeylives said | July 4th 2012 @ 7:35am | Report comment
Very good article Clyde. Great reply also.
July 4th 2012 @ 7:41am
biltongbek said | July 4th 2012 @ 7:41am | Report comment
Rath, mate I never judged you, was very disappointed that you left of course, But as I said in my first post Professional players have to look after themselves.
As for examples, CJ Stander, Izak v d Westhuizen, and a few others I”ll have to go check the list as there are a number of 21 year olds leaving for the UK).
I post on another website where this topic is discussed continuously as they talk about their “project players”
As for developing more in OZ, well I’ll have to take your word for it, however you cannot deny the fact of being U21 captain has already “established you as a future international”
I haven’t left SA, I still live here and bar everything goes for a ball of poop, I won’t leave.
As for players choosing to leave, of course they will leave if there is no opportunity in the country they live in, I haven’t disputed that fact.
As for your personal reasons to leave, many leave because of that, it is the way of life over here.
sorry to say this, but you seem to be taking my opinion personally, and it wasn’t meant to be offensive to you.
I am a very proud Springbok supporter and is sad every time I hear a talented youngster leaves our shores, I don’t mind the older ones who have done their country proud and are going after the money.
If you look at the current situation with england, I read the other day in the last decade 10 South Africans have represented england on the rugby field, I am sure you are aware of the players representing england in cricket as well.
I know it is happening, but I don’t have to like it.
You talk about loyalty and I said right off the bat, professionalism has brought along an age where loyalty doesn’t exist, well not in the sense of representing a specific club/province/nation. you chose loyalty to your family, nothing wrong with that, it is the most important facet of our lives.
You just have to look at the Cheetahs, the only guy there that has never forsaken his province is Juan Smith, and I am pretty sure he must have had plenty of opportunities.
July 4th 2012 @ 8:11am
Rath said | July 4th 2012 @ 8:11am | Report comment
biltongbek,
I’m confused. You state that: “professionalism has brought along an age where loyalty doesn’t exist, well not in the sense of representing a specific club/province/nation.” and then you go on to site Juan Smith as an example of that which you claim is nonexistent.
You wrote: “As a former South African under 19 world cup winning captain I reckon old Clyde here should know better than anyone that loyalty unfortunately means little in the professional era.”
Yours was a statement directed at me and I’ve responded as such. You don’t get to make personal statements about me and then ask me not to take them personally, that’s as illogical as the above example.
Don’t confuse blind loyalty with integrity.
Ciao,
Rath
July 4th 2012 @ 8:18am
biltongbek said | July 4th 2012 @ 8:18am | Report comment
I used Juan Smith as the only example of showing loyalty to his province..
Perhaps I should have been more diplomatic.
July 5th 2012 @ 7:22pm
nickoldschool said | July 5th 2012 @ 7:22pm | Report comment
Biltongtek, for what its worth, i feel that your initial post and answers were honest and spot on. In a politically correct society like ours, its rare to stand up for what you think although it was clear that the majority of posters would take the side of the ‘name’ vs the ‘nobody’.
If Liam Gill were to leave Oz next year and move to NZ or SA, many wallabies supporters would feel like you did and woul express the same feelings. The situation in SA being what it is, I do also understand Clyde’s reasons to move out of his native country and completely respect that. However, I would have liked to read how hard it was to wear the wallabies jersey instead of the Springkobs one and face his former friends, team mates and coaches. IMO, it would have given much more power and strength to his decision. I would like to believe that it was emotionally hard for him to face them, at least I do hope so.
I have a few saffa friends here who have left their country for the same reasons 10, 20 or 40 years ago..and they still support the Boks. Others dont, and we have to respect that too.
July 5th 2012 @ 9:46pm
biltongbek said | July 5th 2012 @ 9:46pm | Report comment
Thanks Nick, I think it is important to view one’s honest opinions about these issues, however I should have considered my response not to be so controversial, I also get why Clyde left SA, and to be honest if I had an opportunity like his and had to consider my famaily’s future under the circumstances he did I might have done the same thing.
I think the important thing here is we understand or at least have heard each other’s point of view on the subject and our stance on the subject isn’t going to change anything.
July 4th 2012 @ 8:52am
Shaun said | July 4th 2012 @ 8:52am | Report comment
Hi Clyde
As someone who keenly followed your career and thought highly of your talent…please allow me to ask a question.
Do you think your 1 year RAPID development, specifically physically had any thing to do with your spate of injurys later on?
Were you relatively injury free in your younger playing days?
Unfortunately a potentially long successful career was cruelly cut short by mounting injury…
July 4th 2012 @ 7:35pm
Rath said | July 4th 2012 @ 7:35pm | Report comment
Shaun,
You pose an interesting question.
I think that there were training methods that I employed that did increase my risk of injury. I was never an especially efficient runner, or rather I have poor biomechanics for volume running. That coupled with the fact that I was able to generate a lot of force did place greater stress on my ligaments and tendons.
My injuries were of the overuse type that became chronic. Running and lifting weights independently does not appear to aggravate my ligaments, combining weightlifting with a large volume of running did not agree with me.
The solution was to remove the lower body weightlifting which appeared to help my knees but robbed me of my point of difference..power and speed.
Basically my greatest strength was my strength and that turned out to be a weakness
Cheers,
Rath
July 4th 2012 @ 2:33pm
Australian Rules said | July 4th 2012 @ 2:33pm | Report comment
Great article Rath, and interesting to read about your family’s journey from SA to Oz.
My wife is South African and her family is slowly moving over here too, so I can relate to some of your experiences…though not with the same personal experience.
Keep up the contributions on the Roar – if they get people thinking, that’s a good thing!
Cheers
July 5th 2012 @ 9:08am
Shaun said | July 5th 2012 @ 9:08am | Report comment
Thanks for the reply Rath, always very interesting how these things work. Quite often you only learn about ramifications once its too late.
Is it the Welsh winger George North who has been told to spend very little time on bulking up otherwise they fear he will lose his flair?
Anyway, all the best Rath!
July 4th 2012 @ 10:57pm
BigAl said | July 4th 2012 @ 10:57pm | Report comment
Rath – interesting you bring up things other than Rugby that influenced your move.
I can add, that about 8 years ago I was with a company that had links with South Africa which resulted in quite a few SA personnel coming to Aus. for short stints.
In company talk, to a man/woman they espoused how proud they were of the new South Africa etc., but when you got to talking to them in private almost all of them admitted that they would re-locate to Aus. at the drop of a hat, if they only could.
Interestingly, the only one who differed on this was a 4th gen. South African of Indian descent who had nothing but good to say about ‘the new’ SA. What made it even more interesting was that even though he was 4th gen. , he still spoke English with an Indian accent ???
July 6th 2012 @ 1:50am
Stellenbosched said | July 6th 2012 @ 1:50am | Report comment
With all due respect Rathbone, if your idea of loyalty runs in the family, then perhaps your great grandfather was German.
July 4th 2012 @ 5:48am
moaman said | July 4th 2012 @ 5:48am | Report comment
Thought-provoking article Clyde. I have to say first up,regarding SBW that I was gutted when the cryptic announcement came,hard on the heels of his scintillating display in the 3rd Test v Ireland; the timing couldn’t have been much worse.As a fan,I am disappointed for the (potential)loss of ‘what might have been’ and pissed- off about the secrecy that shrouds the “decision”-why not just make a statement and be done with it?
Having said all that,Williams has a right to do whatever he wants with his life-of course-and good luck to him.Just don’t come knocking on the AB door in 2 years time and expect to find your possie has been kept for you!
Big Picture-I guess us fans have to suck it up and accept that in these professional times,this generation of players will not feel the same allegiance to Team,Club etc that earlier generations were imbued with.That is their right,and fair enough.
Grrrrr…….still gutted though.
July 4th 2012 @ 6:02am
mania said | July 4th 2012 @ 6:02am | Report comment
loyalty should only be to one person and thats yourself.
SBW and Pocock do whats right for yourselves. screw public opinion. anda lasting legacy of loyalty? what a joke. u cant eat loyalty.
to strilingMortlock – wow the last man standing from the golden era of aus rugby. not only the last man standing but also one of its main contributors. fare thee well stirling you’ve been sterling and larkham, gregan and co could never have done it without you. one fo the greats on the list of AB’s most honoured enemies
July 4th 2012 @ 6:19am
SandBox said | July 4th 2012 @ 6:19am | Report comment
you can’t eat loyalty, agreed. Although, you can’t eat money either. We get your point. Most of us have 40 or so years to save for retirement. These guys have 10 if they’re lucky. Don’t be too hard on them
July 4th 2012 @ 9:17am
Mals said | July 4th 2012 @ 9:17am | Report comment
That is true to an extent Sandbox, in that many players will not be earning “rugby salaries” in retirement. However, many former pro rugby players continue to earn very good money post retirement. To start a new career in your early 30s is not a death knell, especially with many players juggling university degrees or further education while playing rugby.
July 4th 2012 @ 4:17pm
SandBox said | July 4th 2012 @ 4:17pm | Report comment
yes Mals, many RU players have lucrative careers after. Perhaps it’s more relevant to that other code where the people are often less able to produce an income after they retire. It does apply to some RU players though. Don’t see SBW being big on running a Cafe or anything involving customer service, and he has no tertiary qualification as yet. Maybe he should be a banker. The world needs more bankers
July 4th 2012 @ 7:06am
Richard said | July 4th 2012 @ 7:06am | Report comment
The concept of loyalty has shifted so dramatically .As Stanford University professor Jeffrey Pfeffer, puts it, it’s all about the changing nature of organisations, in which you have to fend for yourself.
Pfeffer writes: “My perspective is that organisations — which have laid off millions, which have workplaces filled with disengaged and dissatisfied employees, and which regularly, even in partnerships, cast people aside — can (and do) take care of themselves. My point of view is quite consistent with the popular idea of employees as free agents and the evidence on the ever-weakening bonds between people and their employers … you need to take care of yourself — and do so by whatever means necessary. Don’t rely on the kindness of strangers, much less the unselfish support of colleagues or the good auspices of your employer. You have to fend for yourself, or like my friend and soon-to-be former co-worker, you may find yourself in a bad situation”.
That sounds harsh. But with the economic recovery so patchy and various sectors still laying off workers, many are likely to be thinking along similar lines, and in doing so, reassessing their relationship with their employer.
So, there’s no such thing as a company being committed to it’s employees. If you believe there is, then you’re just falling for the illusion that so many companies try to foster. Companies will retrench ANYONE at the drop of a hat for what they may consider to be a short term meager gain.
Best thing employees can do is to lie, lie and lie some more. Tell management what they want to hear and do the complete opposite to benefit yourself. Because they’ll outsource your job to Indian or China soon enough, or do a round of ‘cost cutting’ to beat their chests in front of shareholders.
July 4th 2012 @ 11:45am
Go_the_Wannabe's said | July 4th 2012 @ 11:45am | Report comment
Yes, the old company loyalty routine has fallen by the wayside.
“If I’m loyal to the company then they’ll look after me in the bad times” is over.
It doesn’t matter if it’s a large multi-national or not, they can and will retrench you at the drop of a hat.
Best that you can do is negotiate the best retrenchment you can get i.e. try and get at least 2 years up to make it worthwhile and if you have to finish some work before you can leave, ensure that you get some golden handcuffs to hang around. Better yet, try to ensure they have to get you back on contract because you’re the only one who knows the work.
All cynical stuff I know, but you’re the only one who’ll look out for your own interests.
July 4th 2012 @ 8:26am
Brett McKay said | July 4th 2012 @ 8:26am | Report comment
“Interestingly, we don’t tend to question the loyalties of less talented players who make smart career moves to new teams. And yet the games’ superstars are held to a different standard.”
Brilliantly well said, Clyde. Thanks for another great insight..
July 4th 2012 @ 8:52am
B-Rock said | July 4th 2012 @ 8:52am | Report comment
Clyde/Brett – do you think this double standard is due to the relative investment from clubs and codes in the “superstars” vs. the “less talented players”?
If you are struggling to make the side and are paid as such, no one begrudges a player from finding a more stable/lucrative position. In contrast, if you are a “superstar” you are typically very well looked after both financially and otherwise. I dont think its unreasonable to expect different levels of loyalty from these two groups.
July 4th 2012 @ 11:48am
Brett McKay said | July 4th 2012 @ 11:48am | Report comment
B-Rock, I think you’ve nailed it. Certainly, if a club ploughs big money into a ‘superstar’ and they have all sorts of success, but then take off at the next offer of big money, the club would feel a bit miffed, for sure. Especially if they’ve developed said superstar for a long period of time.
Likewise, the fans themselves make big investments into these superstars in terms of merchandise, and match tickets, time spent on active support (attending games, fan days, discussion forums like The Roar, etc), only to then see that superstar head off into the sunset. They might be even more miffed than the club ebcuase they “feel” their investment into the player wasted, rather than see it on a speadsheet.
But then of course, is the case of the journeyman, the honest toiler who’s probably not destined for higher honours, but who every club needs. Indeed, you could easily argue that these players are the lifeblood of professional sport, and the very spine of the teams they play for.
Yet these guys are the one that suddenly find themselves without a club in September, or find themselves surplus to requirements after the club recruits a superstar in their position. These are the guys who will play for three teams in their career. These are the guys who are rushed into squads from clubland to fill a hole, on a short-term contract, where they’re literally playing for their livelihood.
These guys are probably the most deserving of ‘loyalty’, yet see it the least.
And yeah, that’s a massive double standard that, unfortunately, isn’t likely to be addressed in any great hurry…
July 4th 2012 @ 8:54am
BennO said | July 4th 2012 @ 8:54am | Report comment
It is a good point eh. He’s not a half bad writer, this Rathbone fella.
July 4th 2012 @ 11:49am
Brett McKay said | July 4th 2012 @ 11:49am | Report comment
“Blessed” doesn’t do it justice, BennO. We’re exceptionally lucky to be getting this kind of first-hand insight..
July 4th 2012 @ 4:10pm
BennO said | July 4th 2012 @ 4:10pm | Report comment
Agree Brett, I’ve really enjoyed his articles. One of the things I’ve come to appreciate over the past few years with the deterioration of civil debate on the interwebz, is calm respectful opinion that has a rational basis. Clyde keeps serving it up. And of course, a tip of the hat to you for that as well.
July 4th 2012 @ 8:40am
B-Rock said | July 4th 2012 @ 8:40am | Report comment
Once again, a very good article from Clyde
I think its important to define loyalty in the modern era. I do not begrudge any athlete from maximising their wealth and improving their career development. They dont have long as a pro athlete and will undoubtedly take a step back in earning power when they retire.
Saying that, there are limits to how many times you can chop and change sports and structure your career solely to suit yourself. IMO, scheduling boxing matches during/imediately before the season highlights how little he actually cares about the teams he is playng with.
In his career he has played 3.5yrs for the bulldogs, 2yrs for Toulon, 1yr for the crusaders, 1yr for the chiefs, and soon a 1yr deal for the Roosters. Obviously he has also been boxing over that time. By the end of next year he would have played for five teams, in three sports in less than 9yrs. There comes a point where loyalty to yourself can be taken too far.
If someone had this turnover in the corporate world they would struggle to get a job regardless of talent as it takes time to build value for the organisation you are in. Imagine if the Saders could have built on the combinations established last year with Carter, Fruen, etc?
By all means, you have to look after yourself but there are limits, which SBW has crossed IMO
July 4th 2012 @ 8:49am
WQ said | July 4th 2012 @ 8:49am | Report comment
My question in this whole debate is loyalty to who?
- The club who gave you a start and paid you a pittance until you were a superstar even though you gave plenty prior to becoming a superstar. Oh and by the way, will quite simply drop you if you have a period of poor performance for any reason whatsoever?
- The fans whom are so fickle that today you are a superstar tomorrow you are s**t because you have lost your form or been caught out having a drink with your mates?
- Your Team mates that would step on you for the same dollar that you are elusively chasing so that you can do the best you can for yourself and your family?
- The game that chews up more crumpled bodies than most other sports and is constantly trying to create the next you as you are now deemed to be to old and no longer needed?
Get real people, and for those of you that have worked and created a career for yourselves, ask yourself this – have you only ever had 1 employer and never left that employer even though you could have improved yourself and made more money somewhere else?
July 4th 2012 @ 9:02am
B-Rock said | July 4th 2012 @ 9:02am | Report comment
While very glass half full, I agree with most of your points – on the comparisons to careers outside sport, there is a middle ground between blind loyalty to one employer and the equivalent of 5 companies/3 industries in less than 9yrs – In my industry, where loyalty to employers is very uncommon, you are still expected to do a stint in one place to build upon. You wouldnt be taken seriously with a track record like SBW.
as i posted above:
“If someone had this turnover in the corporate world they would struggle to get a job regardless of talent as it takes time to build value for the organisation you are in.”
July 4th 2012 @ 10:02am
WQ said | July 4th 2012 @ 10:02am | Report comment
Certainly understand your point about having time to ‘build value in an organisation’ prior to moving on for the benefit of a career. This time factor is also very dependant on the role you play inside the organisation. However this can also happen in reverse if you find yourself being dragged backwards by your involvement in a bad organisation!
If we are talking about SBW and I assume you are, about the only organisation that he left that he has not advanced his or their position was the Bulldogs. I feel quite sure that he would tell you that organisation was not doing anything for his career and the things he wanted to do.
In other words he left what he perceived to be a bad organisation for him.
July 4th 2012 @ 4:34pm
Col Quinn said | July 4th 2012 @ 4:34pm | Report comment
WQ
Rubbish, he changed his manager after he had signed a $400,000 plus per year contract. His new manager got nothing out of the deal and instigated to whole incident so he could get a share of SWB. There is more but like many in the club at the time we prefer not to discuss this distasteful person and his complete lack of any business ethics. Why do you think he won’t sign the NRL’s manager’s agreement? It contains sections agreeing to business ethics. You just haven’t a clue what went on with SWB and his grub manager.
July 4th 2012 @ 8:45pm
Damien said | July 4th 2012 @ 8:45pm | Report comment
Col,
Gavin Orr was a bad fit for SBW. He may be good for other players but not for SBW.
Its sad because SBW actually lived with Orr and his family when he first came to Oz, but as time went on, SBW I feel was short changed by Orr.
I don’t think the contract that SBW signed was the best one for someone of his talent and potential. A 5 year deal with no potential incease in pay ?. No get out clause. What league star doesn’t get a ‘get out’ clause put into there contracts. The contract that SBW signed looked like it was negotiated by a first time manager.
Nasser’s no angel agreed but neither are most of the managers either.
Orr also pursuaded SBW into buying an overpriced unit in Cronulla ($900K) in 2006 and when SBW went to refinance in 2008 because of raising interest rates it was only valued at $650K.
Just so you know SBW actually asked Nasser to represent him, not the other way round. And there is no contract between the SBW and Nasser. They’ve aggreed to terms and thats it.
SBW had achieved so much since his walkout (including donating $100K of his own money to the earthquake appeal) so I reckon he made the right choice to leave Orr at Pacific Sports Management.
The SBW contract saga will always make for good reading but personally I think its time to move on. SBW’s paid his $750K to get released by the Dogs and everyone went their separate ways..
July 5th 2012 @ 8:48am
Col Quinn said | July 5th 2012 @ 8:48am | Report comment
Damien
I would have loved to have done business with both yourself and WQ. You would have been easy meat. I have been involved with contracts that as time progressed became less advantageous to me. I upheld those contracts for two reasons, it was the honourable thing to do and the contracts were legally binding. You really have no idea about the meaning of a legally binding contract. What you have written about SWB and Nasser is partially true. What you have neglected to say was the role Mundine played in convincing SBW to change managers and break his contract. You have also neglected to mention that Canterbury were at the limit of their salary cap. Canterbury were not trying to rip SWB off, the club was paying what they could afford at the time. If you a correct in your assessment that Orr was not providing SBW with poor advice then he has the right to change managers. I am not so sure that the advice Orr was providing was that bad in light of the circumstances at the time. I can tell you that the SBW received much more, than he was payed under his contract, from the Dogs. Everything you have said irrelevant as SBW deliberately breached a legally binding contract, which he signed with both eyes open, and left his team mates for dead. That is what irks most Dog players, of that time, the lack of loyalty to his former friends.
July 5th 2012 @ 9:01am
Brett McKay said | July 5th 2012 @ 9:01am | Report comment
Col, two things stand out in your reply here:
“You have also neglected to mention that Canterbury were at the limit of their salary cap.”
and
“I can tell you that the SBW received much more, than he was payed under his contract, from the Dogs.”
Ignoring the curiosity in how you can tell us what SBW was allegedly paid, do you not realise what you’re saying your club did with these two statements?
July 5th 2012 @ 9:28am
Col Quinn said | July 5th 2012 @ 9:28am | Report comment
Brett,
Paying SBW his contract brought the Dogs to their salary limit. The Dogs could not pay a larger contract without shedding other palyers. Sorry if that was not clear enough. SBW recieved an education, health cover, support for family members, etc. These are items that are outside the salary cap.
July 5th 2012 @ 9:36am
Brett McKay said | July 5th 2012 @ 9:36am | Report comment
OK, fair enough Col, I thought you were speaking out of school for a minute..
July 5th 2012 @ 1:29pm
Damien said | July 5th 2012 @ 1:29pm | Report comment
Hi Col,
You’re probably right. I would have been easy meat for you coz I tend to believe in the good will of my fellow citizen so I would have taken you at your word. Luckily I let my wife deal with all the contract/legal work. I’m a contractor so we do deal with those legally binding documents all the time.
I have this ‘bad’ habit of regularly going above and beyond the call of duty. It’s upset my workers & wife a few times and sometimes put us on the edge. This has seen people take advantage of me several times. My explanation is that I don’t really care it’s just as long as I’m happy that I have everything possible (within reason) to look after my clients and that I leave with a clear conscience. My personal constitution is different from most people and that’s the beat that I march too.
My wife looks after all the rest. You would have done well to get past her. In the end I can’t control what other people do and as long as my family is safe and well I try not to get too worked up over people who have pulled one over me. They have to live with the consequences, normally it all works out.
Back to SBW.
I see this contract issue a little differently.
SBW wants a good deal. Manager gets him a ‘good’ deal in their sports circumstances.
Mundine sees the deal and goes WTF ? This is good for league standards but you are worth way more !!
SBW thinks ‘Really ?’ You think I can get a better deal ?”
‘Hell Yeah !!. But..we have to think outside the square. Someone of your talent won’t get paid your market value here, by the way, Orr is meant to be getting you the best deal, that shouldn’t necessarily include league.”
This set off a chain of events and the rest is history.
Not ideal but in the world of pro sport it shouldn’t really suprise anyone.
I didn’t like it but given the circumstances and the fact the Doggies got $750K for there troubled I say let bygones be bygones and let the man do his thing..
July 5th 2012 @ 4:09pm
Col Quinn said | July 5th 2012 @ 4:09pm | Report comment
Damien,
Apologies for being so rude in the previous comment. You are right I should forgive and forget. Although I was privy to some of the activities behind the scene and have formed a strong opinion of SBW and his entourage’s characters, I should put those aside as holding grudges does nothing. We fellow contractors should stick together.
CQ
July 5th 2012 @ 9:12pm
Damien said | July 5th 2012 @ 9:12pm | Report comment
Hi Col,
It’s all good, no offense was taken.
We had a ‘walkout’ a couple of years ago which really affected us quite abit. My wife and I personally laid out thousands on a young man who I knew that was in a bad place. We paid to set him up and he worked with us. We changed our schedule countless times to give him time off for his DOCS appearances, (I wrote DOCS an 8 page letter of support for him even !!) paid for his phone, pick up and drop off to work etc. My parents and even my wife asked me when I was going to draw the line. I kept on saying we’ll do what we can to get him back on track. He was really good at the job, and always had good intentions and I thought of him as a younger brother.
We had high hopes for him. Only thing holding him back was very intense family issues and the drink. One day I went to pick him up 6am as normal and no one was home, no answer on the phone, nothing. . I went by his place every morning and night but nothing. After a week I get a call from him. There was a huge fight at a family party and he couldn’t take the drama anymore so he took off to Cairns to his Mum’s place. Not only had we lost a crucial member of the team but he had run up $1800 in phone bills relating to the family issues. Of course you can imagine what my wife and family thought about it but I said its pointless getting worked up about it. We’ll cop the phone bill (which hurt because our invoices were really low with the economy) and try to move on.
Listening to his story when he eventually called I was upset but, I could understand why he did what he did.
He wasn’t an evil con man or anything like that. Its just he couldn’t control his situation any longer (he had it under control for just over a year) and it ended up doing him in.I wished him the best and said I hope it works out for him.
I know this is so far away from SBW’s situation but you’re right in saying that holding grudges doesn’t do much. It probably actually makes things worse coz its harder to move on.
Thankfully it all worked out. Still get a call from him now and then.
Us contractors definitely gotta stick together !!
July 5th 2012 @ 12:58am
WQ said | July 5th 2012 @ 12:58am | Report comment
Col Quinn you have very clearly shown your allegiance to the Bulldogs on this issue previous to this blog. As I have mentioned previously I admire your loyalty and blind faith in that organisation. However others see the whole process very differently and I for one don’t believe the Bulldogs were ever the best place for SBW to stay. Ask yourself this, could they have helped him achieve what he has over the last few years? If your honest with yourself the answer will be no, therefore you are saying that he should have sacrificed his own desires to suit the Bulldogs.
I don’t think so!
July 4th 2012 @ 6:48pm
Toa said | July 4th 2012 @ 6:48pm | Report comment
WQ thanks for keeping it real.
Quite often theses blogs are filled with outrageous rants streaming from selective angles. Similar to every other industry these guys are self employed contractors who work for an organisation that trades in the entertainment sector.
At superstar level loyalty card can be a difficult one to play for individuals who side with the internal forces. However there must be a certain amount of pain for players having to relocate, that said apart from being pushed they did it for both their families & themselves…. blood is thicker than water.
Personally its a courageous effort to follow through a decision knowing full well their reputation will be continuously raped by many. I guess they prefer to be in the drivers seat & there’s nothing wrong with that.
July 5th 2012 @ 6:36pm
WQ said | July 5th 2012 @ 6:36pm | Report comment
Cheers Toa