What does Rugby Australia need?
Centralised contracts!
When does it need them?
Now!
The row between Michael Cheika and the Brumbies franchise over resting David Pocock, Allan Alaalatoa and Scott Sio from Sunday’s match against the Sunwolves to keep them fresh (or fresher) for the crucial first Test against Ireland reveals the urgent need for a centralised contract system to force the franchises and the Wallabies to move in one forward direction.
For decades the states have contested priority rights over the players against the central rugby organisation, Rugby Australia (the former ARU).
There was a tour to New Zealand where Queensland players withdrew over a dispute over a coach in the amateur era.
And this debilitating antagonism between the states and the central rugby authority continues.
Wallaby coaches in the professional era, with far more Test rugby to fit into a player’s schedule, have had numerous conflicts with the Super Rugby coaches.
The fault lies with the state unions and their determination to exercise total control over their players, even at the expense of the Wallabies and the prestige a winning national side brings to the rugby game.
Michael Cheika has gone out of his way to try to get rid of this blight on the organisation of the rugby game in Australia. He has kept in close contact with the Super Rugby franchises. Expertise from the Wallabies coaching staff has been made available when requested.
But to no avail, as the stand-off between the Brumbies and Cheika over the three players indicated.
The Brumbies wanted to ensure a victory over the depleted Sunwolves to keep their (slight) chances of making the Super Rugby finals alive. Ironically, the Sunwolves had left their Test players in Japan to prepare for their internationals. The franchise, too, wanted to achieve a 15,000 crowd. They needed, it was argued, the Brumbies’ star Wallabies to entice the followers to attend the match.
Cheika wanted an extra day of preparation for the three players ahead of the Test against Ireland on Saturday.
And the Brumbies wanted the players to win a vital Super Rugby match for the franchise, and bring in the crowd.
(Photo by Dan Mullan/Getty Images)
The puzzling aspect of this stuff-up is that Rugby Australia, Cheika and the Brumbies knew at the beginning of the season that the Brumbies were playing the Sunwolves on the Sunday afternoon before the Saturday Test.
Why did everyone let the problem fester until it came to a head too late in the day?
The answer is that Cheika and Rugby Australia have no real power over a Super Rugby franchise.
Rugby Australia could have ordered the three players to be rested on medical grounds. But this would have raised the issue of them playing a Test six days later.
As it happened, the Brumbies were only told about resting the three players by Rugby Australia about a week or so before Sunday’s match.
On the day, the Brumbies played out a tight first half, going into the changing rooms with a 19-10 lead.
When the lead was extended to 29-17, at the 55-minute mark, David Pocock (a try and a couple of nice passing touches) and Scott Sio sauntered off the field.
None of the other Wallabies playing were injured, despite Tom Banks and Tevita Kuridrani playing out the 80 minutes.
In the end, Michael Cheika lost only one Wallaby from the weekend’s play, young Rebels hooker Jordan Uelese.
Rugby Australia and Rugby New Zealand also came to an agreement over the release of Peter Samu.
(AAP Image/Dave Hunt)
The Wallabies squad, therefore, survived the round of matches much better than the All Blacks squad with question marks over injuries (Brodie Retallick) and a commission inquiry (Liam Squire).
But to avoid any future stuff-ups Rugby Australia should put in protocols about how much rugby the Wallabies could play in the Super Rugby tournament, something that the New Zealand Rugby Union has done. Why was this not done?
The answer to the question is this: Rugby Australia does not have a central contracting system for all its professional players, coaches and staff. That is the problem.
Two countries have this system: New Zealand and Ireland.
These two countries are currently number 1 and 2 on the World Rugby rankings table.
As Mark Ella pointed out in a recent (and excellent) column in The Australian: “You could argue that New Zealand is a great rugby nation and would have enjoyed that success no matter what administrative system was in place but you’d be wrong. The reason New Zealand adopted the centralised model in the first place was because at the time the All Blacks were struggling to beat the Wallabies. Can you imagine?”
“That success” that Mark Ella was talking about includes the fact that “the All Blacks have held the Bledisloe Cup since 2003 and New Zealand teams have won 15 of 22 Super Rugby titles.” He might have mentioned, too, that the All Blacks have won the last two Rugby World Cup tournaments, in 2011 and 2015.
On the back of the centralised contracts system, Ireland have become a world power in the rugby universe. They are the current Grand Slam Six Nations champions and defeated the All Blacks in recent years for the first time since a Test was played between the two countries in 1905. Leinster has just won the European Cup.
And, again to quote Mark Ella, “luck of the Irish, I guess. Funny thing about Ireland, its centralised system is run by Australian David Nucifora…”
David Nucifora. (Photo By Stephen McCarthy/Sportsfile via Getty Images)
The Ireland team now in Australia, the product of Nucifora’s planning and Joe Schmidt’s coaching and selecting, is arguably the greatest squad the Irish Rugby Football Union has ever assembled.
The challenge this team and its New Zealand coach Schmidt poses for the Wallabies is that it is a much better side than Eddie Jones’ England squad which defeated Michael Cheika’s men 3-0 for the first time in a series played in Australia between the two countries in 2016.
The irony in all of this is that Nucifora and John O’Neill, chief executive of Rugby Australia (the then ARU), were virtually forced out of their jobs because the states, especially NSW and Queensland, would not allow them to set up the centralised system that had been agreed to by then ARU board.
The most worrying aspect of all this is that when Raelene Castle, the current chief executive, was debating (in print) the future direction of Australian Rugby with Alan Jones, she did not mention the centralised system once.
Let us be very blunt here: If Raelene Castle and the Rugby Australia board do not immediately set in train a process to bring in centralised contracts system, with emphasis on “immediately,” then they should all consider resigning.
Again, this is not a journalist spouting out here. Here is Mark Ella, again: “Let’s face it, NSW and Queensland together are Australian rugby, but until they realise Australia’s federated rugby system is antiquated it is going to be difficult, if not impossible, to progress the game in this country.”
In the face of these difficulties, Michael Cheika has done a good job in selecting his Wallabies squad to confront a rampant Ireland side. There is the right balance between experience and maturing talent. There is a lot of speed in the backs and some size in the forwards.
[latest_videos_strip category=”rugby” name=”Rugby”]
The top Australian sides played well, too, over the weekend. So his best players are in form.
The Rebels in defeating the Blues at Auckland recorded a rare Australian victory at Eden Park, the first since the Brumbies won in 2013.
In the Super Rugby context, the Rebels were the first Australian side to win in New Zealand in three years and 32 games. It was the first win in New Zealand by the franchise.
The Wallabies in the side, Dane Haylett-Petty, speedster Jack Maddocks (a potential Beauden Barrett, if he gets the right coaching) and Adam Coleman, were in terrific form, a good sign for Michael Cheika.
The Reds-Waratahs match produced 15 tries, the Waratahs’ highest total (52) against an Australian Super Rugby team, the most points in an all-Australian contest (93) and the highest number of points scored by the Reds in a loss.
You could complain about the defence but the attacking play, especially of the Waratahs, was brilliant in its deadly set-piece moves and their execution.
All the Wallabies in the Waratahs were in excellent form, with the leaping of Israel Folau resembling extra-terrestrial play.
Essentially, though, the Wallabies go into Saturday’s Test under a disadvantage. The Super Rugby teams have looked after their own interests, sometimes to the detriment of the performance of their star players in the national team.
How much better could the performance of the Wallabies (and the Super Rugby teams) be if they were part of a system where all the brains, expertise and planning at the highest levels of the game were concentrated on working together to benefit all the levels of the game?
So let’s hear the chant for reform. All together now. And you, too, Raelene Castle and the board of Rugby Australia.
AndyS
Guest
And we are right back to precedent. Both parties agreed to the Alliance agreement, but turned out they didn't have the same understanding as to what it meant. By definition it had to be interpreted; it wouldn't have gone to law otherwise. I would expect exactly that to then weigh heavily on any agreement to allow central contracting. As an exemplar of what can happen, they've demonstrated the need to ensure that every possible interpretation of every single clause works for all parties under every possible future outcome, otherwise they are dumb to sign. Last year proved nothing is ever that clear cut, despite all claims of "good faith" negotiation. So good luck to them trying, even if they could somehow get over the self-interest hurdle.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
The purpose of a contract is to avoid the need to trust or believe. It defines obligations. The content would be relevant if the parties agreed. Since self interest is more important the biggest parties won't. These are two separate issues.
AndyS
Guest
Exactly. So one side won't sign up because it won't make players available, and the other because it might. So the actual content of the agreement and anything RA says/promises/even writes into the central contracting structure would essentially be irrelevant, as neither side would believe it anyway. They certainly couldn't trust that there wouldn't always be room for interpretation, and more fool them if they did.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Of course not. QLD and NSW want to be able to warehouse talent. They would never sign up to anything that makes surplus talent more available to other states.
Malcolm Cornet
Roar Rookie
Australian players are way over paid. Slipper on 500k give me a break. Qc who has done nothing for 5 yrs 800k to play amateur rugby . The ra give $0 to grassroots and wonders why they have little support or spectators.
Iain Barclay
Guest
Couldn't agree more! NSW & Queensland might have been the backbone of Australian rugby for years [& I'm not blind to the success of the Brumbies in saying that] but those days do NOT represent the modern era, and certainly their respective boards seem to be hampering attempts to develop Union as a genuine national game. It was a sad day for union when it lost John O'Neil to soccer - just look at how that game has grown in Australia under his leadership. Having said all that don't expect change any day soon - entrenched self interest is alive and well. Would love to see Raelene [who I suspect has ovaries of steel to employ when she's not being diplomatic] take on the old boys hanging on to what they regard as their turf though.
AndyS
Guest
The interpretation would be precisely about how the contracting process worked. You already seem to be making those assumptions...you think all four teams would sign up to X protected players and all the best of the rest directed to just one or two teams?
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Again, you're getting completely away from the point. That interpretation was purely regarding the duration of the obligation. Not what they were actually agreeing to. Player contracts are fixed duration obligations which can only be ended by agreement, or termination (pending valid reason). If all parties agree that RA contracts all players (which they actually basically do now anyway consider they provide the funds and ratify the agreements) and that each franchise can protect X amount, and that all players surplus to that number are open to redistribution as RA sees fit, that's the agreement. There's little room for interpretation.
Ex force fan
Guest
Good luck on negotiating a three way contract: franchise, RA and player when neither the players nor the franchise trust RA. The contract will be reviewed for all possoble scenarios and they will struggle to come to any agreement that gives the RA the control that NZRU has over their contracted players. RA cannot complain they created the environment.
Johnno
Guest
The problem with centralisation and RA owning all 4 super rugby sides is it would only confirm again that SR is just a trial Comp/feeder Comp to the wallabies... No wonder fans have no passion for SR as in OZ at the moment anyway as club glory is not valued eg huge foreign import bans to give locals all the Chances and the soccer model and French-English rugby model of club glory being equal to super rugby glory etc.. As said if that’s the case and wallaby glory is all RA care about them they should buy all 4-franchises and own the IP and licence the teams out and just admit they don’t give a flying you know what about super rugby ?... There’s no passion in oz as it is, as most have worked this out that super rugby has no pride and value and is just a trial comp for wallaby selection not a true club glory comp.. centralisation would only reinforce this and empty stadiums and low tv ratings would continue.. Shute shield there is real club pride with proud history and community engagement, it’s not about the wallabies it’s about club pride which is why it’s doing well... maybe RA should own all the teams IP and central contracts and rest periods but they should allow more foreign imports and allow clubs to be as good as they can be and chase super rugby glory, not just the current model of super rugby being a trial comp for wallaby selection..
FunBus
Roar Rookie
Certainly, there are rumours that Jones is beasting the England players in training. I suspect his sole focus is on the RWC and he's willing to sacrifice results this year (and even a few players) to have them at peak fitness for Japan. He's gambling with the mood in the squad and relations with the clubs, though.
AndyS
Guest
More accurately, while central contacting theoretically entails whatever the parties agreed it to be, it'll actually mean any future potential interpretations under all possible changes in circumstance. That was the lesson from last year that I doubt would now be forgotten in negotiation - "should" is meaningless, only "could" matters. So everyone would just have to agree on that basis...
Boomeranga
Guest
Maybe, I wouldn't know how their citizenship works but as DM was born and raised here he is one of us. I've seen Jackos list of the 35% of NRL players from NZ and the 10% from elsewhere and it's filled with blokes like Dusty. The first name on the list was Tim Mannah. Apparently he not from Australia. I'd be interested in his view of that.
Dubaikiwi
Guest
I wrote a whole article on this cost difference and was rejected by roar as unsuitable for audience. Go figure.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Had the Brumbies known about this all season it could have been handled much better. Likely would have come to a halfway agreement at least.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Do you just repeat the same comments and disregard the responses? Central Contacting can entail whatever the parties agree it to. The Force were only able to be cut because they also centrally contract their risk to the ARU. I reiterate. Centrally contracting players does not have to impact the franchises, other than access to players beyond an agreed, protected group. Yes, YOU say, RA are always wrong. Always. Never the states which have all sent themselves to the wall. Sounds objective.
Bakkies
Guest
Dusty like the former Deputy PM and Kiwi of the Year Nominee is a Kiwi citizen due to his father.
Bakkies
Guest
The amount of clubs is no doubt inflated due to a significant number not offering both hurling and football so a separate club pops up in town, parish, etc. Despite by mostly a Summer sport the GAA season is getting longer. The clubs are bringing back their young juveniles even at under 8s back to training in January despite the season starting in March. Play continues in School Holidays. Often depending on tournaments it finishes in late October/early November. Some county boards are doing this intentionally as they see Rugby as a threat. Soccer have a far more defined March to September season.
Bakkies
Guest
Exactly. There are two other things that the press in Australia fail to mention when trumpeting the Irish system. First one is the IRFU had their Pulver and de Clyne moment by hitting Connacht with the axe which would have killed off the game in the province. There were protests to Dublin and Limerick car salesman Frank Hogan along with a Kiwi rep from the IRB told the IRFU it will detrimental by cutting a quarter of your pro base. Their argument was that a significant portion of your base will be injured or suspended and will cause blockages in opportunities for young players at the other three provinces. We may not have seen Tiernan O'Halloran, John Muldoon, Johnny O'Connor, Robbie Henshaw, etc play for their home province if they were playing the game at all. A lot of players got their start at Connacht. Bernard Jackman, Jerry Flannery, Sean Cronin, Mike McCarthy and many more got their starts at Connacht. It gave Flannery an opportunity as Munster had Frankie Sheehan on the books and Keith Wood had a stint their too. Later on Cronin did the same thing when Flannery and Sheehan held their shirt at Munster. The other is there is a lot of Irish talent that pro provincial and test experience playing abroad. It is not just the Sanzaar unions that have that issue.
One way street
Guest
It seems you don't understand, hehe..The players are not the problem..hehe.. Thorn is the problem, not the solution..hehe..