Is the ARU sabbatical move strong enough?

Bill Pulver on Rugby HQ during last years Rugby Championship." Ben Mowen is not going anywhere!!" Well Bill here's a tip for you he's is in France playing Top 14 for Montpellier. It is convenient that you have not mentioned his name along Douglas, Timani and Cummins yet he was our WB Captain at that time. Extremely dis-respectful to use the 2 year qualificaion as a steadfast rule unless you are a League convert.How do the GWS Giants in AFL negfotiate a 26 million $ sponsorship with the ACT Government for 10 years where they play 3 games plus a trial in the ACT. It is called Upper Management which is something the ARU don't have.

This won't solve a thing. The problem is that the local competitions are no longer producing tough mongrel forwards. You can spend millions on Folaus and KHunts but you need to invest in the shute shield to get tough forwards. You don't get tough forwards in academies and at gyms, but during games.

Notice how the ARU , rugby club, rugby commentators/writers have not once mentioned Ben Mowen when discussing their ARU new policy, everyone but the past Wallaby Captain who happens to possess the highest winning percentage as Wallaby Captain! Is it because they totally misread and misjudged their contract negotiations with him thereby not offering a worthwhile contract to someone that they should have kept for the World Cup (captaincy, leadership, role model, best line outs caller & jumper)? The one that got away and embarrassed the ARU management is now simply forgotten and not to be mentioned!

Simon, your condescending lecture on language might have been useful if you weren't so wrong about what this new allowance means. But you've completely misinterpreted it, and worse, you're now sprouting that misinterpretation like it's fact. Let me make this clear: OVERSEAS BASED PLAYERS WILL NOT BE PICKED FOR THE WALLABIES. The allowance for sabbaticals within a longer-term ARU contract is not the same as picking players playing overseas. The players taking the sabbatical seasons in France or Japan will NOT be picked for the Wallabies while they're away. All this does is allow them to have a season overseas in the middle of a longer ARU contract without affecting their Wallabies eligibility when they come back. But I bet this isn't the last time I have to correct you on this.

I'd like more details on what the French and English clubs are doing that the IRB needs to punish. If they are supposed to release players outside international release dates, then what are international release dates for?

Brett, I personally resist using the words of no, never and won't as they tend to limit ones thought, and especially in this time of change and experiment for Australian rugby. I have been one of the longest and most vocal advocates for the inclusion of overseas playing Wallabies in the squad. I have been told by the Roar experts and many Roarers for a very long time. no, never, won't . Bill Pulver only a few weeks ago also said in his statement about the inclusion of overseas based players no never won't happen on his watch. Well Bill it has happened and the genie has been released. So the wolf (overseas based Wallabies) is now dressed up in the sheep's clothing of overseas sabbaticals with flexibility. Fortunately for Australian rugby it is made up of a board, not just Bill Pulver, who are willing to listen and experiment for the good of the game. We all need to come up with some new ideas and thrash them out on the Roar, no matter how boring! So Brett please no more use of the words no, never and won't it tends to limit the discussion and paints one self into a corner.

Simon's point was that owning a NH club "would be very profitable for the cash strapped ARU". That implies a significant surplus after operational expenses like wages, in which case rich owners wouldn't be necessary. As the saying goes, the way to become a rich man is to be a very rich man and buy a sports team.

That's the problem with Australian rugby. We are too busy arguing amongst ourselves which stifles change.

France has also benefited from former colonies, overseas territories when it comes to Rugby. Its current captain Dusatoir is a 'foreigner.'

He was going to come back but it was a matter of a team wanting to sign him.

What is the private to public school ratio in Aus? I thought it was around 50/50. Sure playing for Ireland is an ambition but the red shirt is valuable for all youngsters. A lot of Munster is remote around the coast kids still get good opportunities to break through. Limerick Rugby is completely different from Cork city. Limerick clubs are tied to parishes so you played for the club in your locality. It would be rare to date a girl that was attached to a rival club. Being a Munster player holds a lot of sway in Limerick. Cork despite being a bigger city there aren't as active participation wise. Cork sport is very political.

Beacause they were too dumb to factor it into the value of players likely to be called up during the designated windows?

Well Said Bakkies, And the problem we have here is that all the people with influence like David lord, keep advocating the same approach, yet somehow expect a different result.

What benefit is there for the aru to lose control over all of its top players and devalue super rugby? Why do they have to change from status quo? Who is o/s now that would walk straight back into the wallabies? However, if they are offering sabaticals, to cummins, douglas etc it is not targetting the elite long termers a la nz. Will be interesting to see how it is implemented since the bar seems to be set quite low, like any current or prospective wallabie.

You basically highlight the problem, it is the lack of a club structure underneath test level that is financially sustainability that all this is about. The teams below test level are essentially feeders for the Wallabies, the structure of Super rugby is unsustainable and has sent the ARU broke. the competition has failed to catch enough market share to maintain a professional playing base. All of the ARU's decisions are made on keeping the Wallabies in the forefront, and everything is sacrificed to do that. there has never been any serious attempt to grow the game from its private school base, a classic post from awhile ago said. "Rugby union is about private Schools, yet expects the masses to pay for it" The biggest mistake we are making is copying a structure that suits NZ, but we don't have the All Blacks or the market share that rugby has in NZ. this approach will never give the code in Australia any real chance of increasing its market share. You can have as many sabbaticals as you like, but what can it ever achieve when all you are doing is propping up a Wallaby team that has to be trotted out up to 20 times a year to pay the bills, yet continues to fail to connect to 90% of the population. Put bluntly the masses are not interested in paying for the ARU's bills.

Andrew you couldn't be more wrong about Munster. The Reds probably generate more income than they do. Munster is a branch of the IRFU not an independently run organisation that isn't dependent on the union. The IRFU are having to finance repayments on Thomond Park and pay the big euros out to keep Paul O'Connell, Conor Murray, Keith Earls, etc in Ireland. If it was out of Munster's own pocket they would be gone. Despite not having a huge budget what Munster (and there is IRFU money to boot) have that Australian teams don't is more rep, underage, season long A fixtures, strong rural clubs despite the recession, academy opportunities so they can get a look at as many potential players as possible. Schools rugby isn't big in Munster so club Rugby is very important. Waterford might not produce a lot of Munster players and have many clubs but what they do have is strong youth teams in those clubs and interest in Rugby. Last night 5,000 went to a Munster trial match in Waterford city and most of the big names didn't play. The IRFU know without the provinces they wouldn't exist. To play for England you have to be playing in the Premiership. What's going to happen is that players on the outer or approaching 30 are going to go to France. It's England's problem if they want to ignore the Armitage brothers and Toby Flood.

Because if they DON'T care about international rugby, we'll end up like football/soccer. Corruption, graft, ineffectual ruling body & clubs that hold the rest of the sport hostage whenever they feel like throwing a tantrum. Unfortunately, European Rugby has copying the football model (too closely),and we have already seen the signs with the Heinecken Cup and Welsh Rugby fiascos.

Simon it wasn't North's club that blocked him it was PRL. PRL fined Saints because they let him play for Wales outside of the international window without compensation. The Premiership is becoming more of a closed shop. If you want to play more test Rugby outside of the June and November windows don't go to England. Most clubs including the French ones are willing to let their players play in the 4 Nations. However it's PRL that's making them stay. LNR aren't so stringant. That's why Welsh players are opting to go to France as they offer more flexibility. Hence Habana and Bakkies playing for the Boks now. Ulster have allowed Pienaar to play a full test program. There hasn't been a good reason for him to go back to SA because he loves playing for Ulster with more freedom and the fans love him.

The clubs have to make money so that they can pay wages. They are restricted to a certain percentage of their turnover to spend on wages.

Spot on David the commercial structure in Sanzar is reliant on test Rugby. Super Rugby should be given more scope to expand its commercial structures. It is much needed so the Super Rugby standard players can earn a better income from the game and the teams have more to kick in to their grassroots.