Nick Phipps extends contract with Australian Rugby to end of 2017

White and Genia aren't replacement half backs though. They slow the game down even more than a fatigued Phipps and aren't good enough to play the first 60 minutes. A radical solution could be to play White/Genia for the first 20 minutes and then bring Phipps on. It's out there and unheard of but could work.

Clause in Phipp's new contract: "Slow down a bit and concentrate on your passing. You have to pace yourself more. Especially if your national coach refuses to substitute you at an opportune time and can't see how hard you work and how drained you are by your mighty efforts when other halfs are just getting their second wind."

Grapeseed, you are correct, since the appointment of Cheika in a dual role capacity, and without changing the current processes/structures of this position, it's a conflict of interest. I don't recall seeing a franchise have this much power over the national sport for quite sometime. The kiwis must have bought all the stocks of popcorn, 2015 in oz rugby is going to be funnier than anything that Hollywood could put together, happy viewing for them.

So my comment regarding ARU autonomy in contracting top 30 players is entirely relevant to this article and illustrates the potential for a perceived conflict of interest when a key decision maker holds dual interests. My comment is noninflammatory, rational and supported by a recent quote from the former Wallaby coach who highlighted the need to keep top 30 negotiations free of the direct influence of franchises. But now I shouldn't make this comment due to my breach of internet forum etiquette? On a site with more tangents and rabbit warrens than the Easter bunny's whole family doing geometry homework? I was hoping that some of the hypersensitivity around this issue had cooled over the Christmas period. But if not, I offer the following comment in substitution of the one above: "Go Phippsy! Great year, big ticker and exactly the sort of driven competitor all teams should value." You see I believe this statement, I just thought that my original comment offered more to the meagre Christmas roar rugby community than a simple platitude.

Grape, I don't think you are saying anything I'll considered let alone conspiring. However, and it seems necessary to note that I speak as a Reds fan, I think offering these thoughts against this article is not good etiquette. Congrats to Phipps. A sterling year for that man. And for the good of the WBs may his ongoing improvement continue.

Not Bothered, I like reading your posts despite you seeming to reserve a special truculence for your responses to me. You seem like a knowledgeable and often rational and reasonable rugby tragic. But dude, you really need to go back and re-read my initial comment (and then your own) to see how far off the mark you are. I am talking about the potential for a conflict of interest. COI is relevant whether it is real or perceived. I am using the current outcome of negotiations with Phipps to illustrate a potential issue, amplified through context provided by an interview about the contract negotiation process conducted earlier this year. If you think this is the stuff of mad conspiracy theory and choose to equate my sober comments to "aliens controlling the government" then I guess you are wilfully missing the point or are otherwise presuming a fallacious extrapolation of my comments. I have spent 90 seconds providing a response to you in recognition of some good posts you have recently made (although with which I don't necessarily agree), and I would welcome any equally sober responses from you. However if you prefer to argue against a caricature of who you think I might be and what you think I might really be saying, then fill your boots. I will hold my own fire (in the interests of the Roar's "new paradigm") until I can gauge your response. If any.

Youve suggested bias towards the Tahs is not only a reality but pretty much unavoidable. You are complaining about that unless as a QLDer you are happy with your assumption that the Tahs will be favoured. So yeah you did exactly what I said, unless you just ran your fingers over my post and didnt bother to comprehend its contents. If you are going to pretend this isnt a suggestion that the Tahs will be favoured and that your post isnt a complaint about this I think you might be in denial. I knew as soon as I read the headline that a Tah Wallaby had been resigned that somebody would have to say something about Tah favouratism and bias even though it is completely logical and justified to sign Phipps your first thought and post is about bias.

Thankfully I've done none of those things. Or do you just brush your fingers lightly over the screen in order to get a general feel for what a comment "might" be about? Beats cognition, I guess.

And aliens control our governments. As soon as I saw the title of this article I knew that the first comment would be a QLDer complaining and suggesting bias or a conspiracy but I must admit that I thought that the post would also contain a shot at how bad Phipps is or how a QLDer is better.

As long as this 'advantage' keeps the best players in a position in this country then keep doing it! Or do you think that's Genia? Giggle giggle.

An interview between Jamie Pandaram and Ewen McKenzie about the contract negotiation process earlier this year sheds light on the potential conflict of interest issues around the current dual provincial / national coaching arrangement: "Pandaram: What is your opinion of the ARU’s new contracting system (the ARU has sole negotiation control with the country’s top 30 players, bypassing previous tri-party discussions that included the player’s Super Rugby franchise)? NSW said they were powerless when they lost Kane Douglas, how is this model better than allowing franchises to get involved if they want to keep a player and offer additional top-ups? McKenzie: In a three-way transaction, you can manoeuvre in the number and it’s really to take that out. There’s pluses and minuses in every system, but having a single point of contact is the primary objective, to try to narrow down the communication. The provinces are communicated to in that space and there are meetings that go on, so it’s certainly not one out, the provinces are involved depending on the scenario. It is about simplifying it, and provinces can go out and contract any other player for the rest of their squad, we’re talking about the top 30, after that the other 130 or 140-odd, they’re free to do what they like with." McKenzie also goes on to say: "My genuine thoughts are that one player’s decision affects another player’s; if one player decides to leave, another player thinks, ‘Here is a good opportunity for me to stay’, so there’s cause and effect that no one can predict." I would hate to patronise anyone on this site by drawing the simple and obvious conclusions about the impact that one franchise with a perceived advantage has at the ARU "top 30" negotiating table.