New contracting regime annoys rugby stars

Pillock, There are a number of fine solutions to this. I recommend, as a start, you look at how other codes do this, because rugby union in Australia is in no way the first code to deal with these issues. Typically, they involve some sort of compensation going from the gaining club to the club that loses the junior. Personally, I'd use a combination of cash and salary cap concessions. Finally, if you dont want your good young players to leave, dont sign them on short, rent-a-player contracts.

Ask Matt Giteau about 3rd party sponsors he will probably disagree. When he was at the Force it was with Firepower and once they could not pay he was out of there. There is no perfect system and as we all know the players will invariably go where they get the most coin. Trouble is that why would a club invest time and money into developing promising players if they know that he can float as soon as another team offers him more coin and they are restricted by a salary cap.

Yes, a lot. This last game being fresh in my mind. He spent the majority of his time at least 2 players from the breakdown and too much time way out wide. The reds still have a solid backline so why is he cramping their style? Get in there Higgers. I know scoring tries and having a run aling the line is fun but your first job has to be the breakdown. I stand by my statement as someone who has watched a lot of the Reds games this year. I love watching them play.

Go for it. It'll be fun. Theres multiple teams over multiple codes that have imploded because of the mistakes you're raring to repeat, but go on. Have fun. Particularily in a sport with such historically strong and competent administration as rugby union, what could possibly ever go wrong with asking clubs to project what their revenue will be, and then sign contracts that rely on third parties like, I dunno, Firepower coming up with the money ? And relying on mining magnates not to microwave their membership card when things go badly is a wonderful plan - just ask our very own Qantas Supports Australian Football, the last of the Gold Coast United supporters. Go on, give it a whirl. What has rugby union got to lose, apart from maybe a couple of Super 15 teams.

the 3rd party payments means the club saves paying the player and puts it money elsewhere. I dont mind the franchise getting private / 3rd party sponshorhip either. The point is some sponsors only want to sponshor some big names not a team, this money would be lost so why not use it. Of course rebels and force can survive, it is up to them how much they spend. Melbourne has a lot of big business to draw from, Perth has the mining boom so get the mining magnates to sponsor you. The governace will stop a club getting into debt it cant pay. The funding from 3rd parties has to be contracted and sure there is a contract end date and they dont have to renew. Having a salary cap just protects the weak and lets them poach the best players other provinces develop. Its lazy and inefficient. It takes away the incentive to be the best , develop the best. What has been achieved if all the teams end up mediocre like they are now. The best players will leave for europe or japan as well. There ARE other forms of goverance than a salary cap. The ARU oversee each state / franchise and makes sure it can afford its obligations instead of one size fits all and everyone have the same cap. If 1 state can afford to pay more and wants to, then why not.

PeterK, Right, so rather than take the sponsorship directly, we'll redirect it as third-party payments to our players, relying on the Great Crowds we get when all our High Priced Free Agents help us Win the Premiership to cover our other costs. There's this play called 'The Club', by David Williamson. You should watch it or read it. Then look at what happened to Glasgow Rangers. Then look at what happened to the Otago Rugby Union. Then you should agree footy clubs need to be protected from themselves by a salary cap. And Im not even starting on what this will do to the weaker Australian rugby unions - can Perth or Melbourne survive under open slather ? Just ask Football Australia what happens when constituent clubs go broke, or when the major funder pulls the plug.

Instead of a salary cap I would restrict loans they can take out (without 3rd party guarantors ) to a percentage of reasonable forcasted earnings, like any good business practise. However since it is unlimited 3rd party sponsorship and 3rd party payments these can be no risk avenues for finance. You still need governance but you dont need a salary cap, each franchise will be able to spend what it can afford.

PeterK, So, whats your fallback plan for when the Otago Rugby Union overspends to win the ITM Cup, fails, doesnt get the crowds and sponsorship it relied on and ends up owing masses of money it can't repay ? Replace Otago with your choice of Australian province, and ITM Cup with Super 15. Or, if you are minded to history, replace Otago with Collingwood, and ITM Cup with VFL Premiership. No, really. Google this phrase, in quotes. "Moreover,+the+club+was+in+severe+financial+strife,+with+rumours+of+bankruptcy+and+liquidation+hovering+in+the+air,+making+it+hard+at+times+for+players+and+coach+to+concentrate+on+football+matters."

I am very much against the salary cap as far as the franchises / states are concerned. I have no issue thet the aru determines what amount they pay in terms of the value of that player in wallaby terms. However they should not know what he gets at provincial level. The franchise should be allowed to pay what it feels it can afford and spread it anyway it wishes. There should no limit to 3rd part deals or private sponshorship afterall this is money that would be lost to union anyway. What happens is that good management and organisation gets punished. You cultivate a great team like the 2011 reds and then are forced to let very good players go. Why? The best thing for australian rugby is to have a very good team be able to stick together and attract attention, and fans for a few years. Look at the impact the brumbies made from 1999-2004. With the salary cap as those players come off contract would be forced to other teams. Also contracts are only 1-2 years now. It is very very stupid. The onus should be on each franchise to build their own successful teams, find and develope their own talent NOT steal other teams once the contract comes up for renewal. All this will create is 5 mediocre aussie rugby teams, interest wil wane, profits drop, membership drop. Imagine where the 5 teams are now and repeat that placing the next umpieth years. It ONLY works for the NRL because every team in the comp abides by it. NZ and SA have their own systems. I hope some players challenge it in the courts and win.

so do i

I bloody care.

Look all rugby union is moving to the soccer bussines model over the next 10-20 years. -Soon rugby will have a global rugby calander -And it will work like this over 4 year cycles -Yr 1 British Lions Y2 Continent cup -Y3 Rest -Y4 Rugby world cup -And there will be the odd money spinner friendly thrown in. 3 test tours like we have this year coming up will be a thing of the past within 10 years, they are a basically meaningless -No one care if England beat Australia and win the cook cup lol

You get used to the ARU being an utter shambles, but every time you think they can't get worse, they do. This confusion over the "salary cap" in the middle of negotiations is colossally amateurish (I would have said astonishingly, but sadly that isn't true). You would have thought they could have sorted all this out back end of last year, but no. Mind you, RUPA seems to be playing their part too.

I think all caps are restraints of trade. Its essentially a gentleman's agreement that they not be challenged in the courts. Something in my mid says Greg Williams of Carlton in the AFL challenged it in the 80s but they came to an agreement in the end. Very fuzzy on this but something rings a bell but dont quote me!

You need to watch some rugby, have you seen him this year?

Could the salary cap be challenged on a "Restraint of trade" basis? Plus, they want a great national team, then put the Aussie teams at a huge disadvantage to the SA and NZ teams. It's no wonder so many players are lost to overseas teams So if the ARU want to sped less, They should make (as in sell) all the franchises into private ones like the Rebels. But that would be too simple for the stick in the muds running the ARU In addition to easing the "financial burden", the money brought in would allow for a desperately needed second tier comp to be re-instated.

I don't think Finegan spent that much time on the wing, tbh. I guess it depends on the requirements of the side really. Look at the difference between Tom Croft and Dan Lydiate, for example.

I find it strange that posters would criticize Higgers for his seagulling etc. He is essentially a number 6 and it is a requirement for a specialist number 6 to be spending some considerable time out in the backline running and defending in that area. He also spends some considerable time in the tough stuff taking the ball up and defending. I mean guys, do you want a number 6 like Elsom who can't run out of sight on a dark night? Give me a player like "Melon" (one of our best number 6) who played like Higgers is now doing. And lets not get too critical as yet when Higgers is now only 25 years old and starting to reach his best rugby that is all ahead of him. Elsom was years older even before he went overseas to become the NH "Messiah" so guys give the kid a break and appreciate the amount of work that he does be it out wide or in tight. You only had to listen to the Kiwi commentators on Sunday raving about the amount of work Higgers gets through in a match. (it would seem that NZ rugby commentators appreciate what our players are doing more than us) I think that I would lean towards the opinion of former All Blacks than good old Aussie posters (meaning no disrespect)

Its a ridiculous situation, like everything else run by the ARU.

so true