Australian Super 15 clubs will soon enter into new salary cap era

[travelling_gerry]

Iain Payten From: The Daily Telegraph March 30, 2011 12:00AM 1 comment

WALLABY Adam Ashley-Cooper has agreed to become a Waratah for the next two years but the deal could be one of the last of its kind after details of new ARU contracting protocols and rugby's first salary cap were revealed.

After re-signing with the ARU last month, Ashley-Cooper told Brumbies teammates yesterday he was moving to NSW to be closer to his Sydney-based partner and his family on the Central Coast, and for a fresh change.

Ashley-Cooper's move after six years in Canberra added another thoroughbred to the Waratahs' well-stocked stable but NSW's strength may not last long under a salary cap and contract protocol to be introduced in 2012.

A document seen by The Daily Telegraph reveals ARU plans to cut player wages with a $4.4 million salary cap at Super Rugby level next year, which will then be cut back to $4.1 million from 2013.

The money must be spread between 30 members of a "core playing squad" and five players on rookie contracts.

Most states currently carry between 38-40 full-time players in their squads.

Where an unofficial cap of around $150,000 to $160,000 existed previously for individual Super Rugby contracts, states may now pay a player as much as they like but, like the NRL, must compensate elsewhere to fit all players under the cap.

The minimum wage in the main squad will stay at $60,095, meaning many mid-range wages will be trimmed.

The ARU protocols also stipulate that they will now not begin negotiating with any players for top-up money until after a deal has been agreed in principle (though not legally) between the player and province.

This is a move no doubt designed to get the states to compete and share more of the costs for elite players with their $4.4 million annual grant, and cut back on a bloated group of players receiving top-up money.

About 50 players now receive top-up money and ARU boss John O'Neill is keen to trim it back to 35.

The grey world of third-party player payments may become even murkier, however, with the protocols declaring that all deals "sourced, facilitated, serviced or guaranteed" by the franchise would count under the salary cap, but those not linked will remain outside the "maximum contribution" cap.

The ARU will allow team sponsors to pay five players up to $30,000 each as a marquee-like concession. The ARU summary document says the new protocols are to "protect the long-term financial health and viability" of Super sides, and to spread talent around.

With the stronger states often accused of warehousing talent at the expense of the weaker ones, the distribution of talent is hoped to be achieved by reducing squad sizes and the creation of a transparent "contracting window" in September.

During the window, franchises must provide a list to the ARU of players they've yet to contract, who will then go in a pool for all states to view and bid for players on 12-month contracts.

The protocols will also open avenues for foreign players and possible private money to lure them to Australia by ruling that they will go into the cap at the average fee of $137,000 regardless of wage.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/spo...-1226030366024

[GIGS20]

Sounds pretty good in principle, but is this another case of JON saving the financial state of the game at the expense of the game? I guess this could be the impetus behind a whole lot of Aussie superstars playing their rugby overseas.

And it explains Sharpie being snubbed by the ARU. I don't see how the ARU are going to keep teams to 35 players when there is a protocol which requires players on short term contracts to be paid a minimum contract after 5 games, we could easily have three or four of them in a couple of weeks!

[Burgs]

Andy Friend will be delighted for him.

I think this is another nail in the coffin for Union becoming/remaining an equal player with the other codes as anyone who reaches their dream of having played a few Tests for their country will then head north for the dollars on the strength of being a Test player.
We will see the continued devaluing of a Test Cap, with them being thrown around like candy to try and retain players.

People make JO'N to be some saviour, he is a (Rugby) communist dickhead.
He has done zero/blot/nadda/zilch to build this code since coming back from round ball and I am starting to wonder if he is still on their payroll. The JO'N strategy of "leading" Rugby is the Chicken Littlesque consolidate and shrink, he is a joke.

[James]

Is this really a good way to go?

I think it'll make it pretty hard to hang onto players that make up the bones of the squad.

[jargan83]

So we have more Super Rugby games and yet some of the players will have to take a pay cut?

I can see that going down well

[beige]

People make JO'N to be some saviour, he is a (Rugby) communist dickhead.
He has done zero/blot/nadda/zilch to build this code since coming back from round ball and I am starting to wonder if he is still on their payroll. The JO'N strategy of "leading" Rugby is the Chicken Littlesque consolidate and shrink, he is a joke.

People that have been on this forum for a while will know that I think that I don't agree with that and that I've stood up for what he's done numerous times in the past. People have always been quick to blame him for things he had nothing to do with and I still maintain that the ARU would have been in a far worse financial state over the last few years if he hadn't made some of the decisions he did (yes, canning the ARC being one of them). Also, people seem to be unwilling to acknowledge that the expanded Super Rugby season and the consequent massively increased TV deal was his idea.

However, that last point about the TV deal is largely why I'm so unhappy with him at the moment. If we have so much more money coming in, where is it all going? I thought this would finally be a chance to at last provide a viable alternative to the money in Europe but this now doesn't seem to be the case. Throw in what seems to be a willful neutering of rugby over on this side of the country - Nathan Sharpe's contract situation and the shambolic treatment of our academy (a mooted national Academy competition turning out to be a Pacific Rugby Cup that didn't include us, and now the proposed scrapping of our Academy program altogether) being notable examples - and I am well off the bandwagon at the moment.

"I told you so"? Hell no, I stand by my previous defenses of him, but I really don't know what he's hoping to achieve at the moment.

[GIGS20]

Well said that man!

[BeeJay]

The grey world of third-party player payments may become even murkier, however, with the protocols declaring that all deals "sourced, facilitated, serviced or guaranteed" by the franchise would count under the salary cap, but those not linked will remain outside the "maximum contribution" cap.

This will be a key, and needs to be fully defined rather than legally tested after the fact. Its all a bit vague to me. It would allow the Force to have a point of difference in negotiations, but it sounds like the deals have to be worked out independently between the player, (his agent), and the sponsor.

[Tonkar]

Hi To all
Just a small note and a request for corrections comments about player payments.
One thing I see is that as pointed out players will get a few tests under their belts and head to the bigger money market which is ok but what about Sharpie and some of the real hard core players who have given their all and can end up on the scrap heap or forced to head north just to play the game they love Eg: Gregan Smith and a few other cose they dont want to play wallaby rugby but would have loved to play super rugby at homehere in AUS. The ARU should have a clause in its player list that once a player get to a certian point in his career he can stay as a super rugby player and not have to be available to be selected for the wallabies
We have lost talent with this rule.
By having clubs set the salaries then we should be allowed a certain number of these senior players to be on the team lists and not have it interfeer with salary caps

[beige]

And welcome to the fun world of salary cap arguments that NRL fans have inhabited for the last 8 years

[GIGS20]

Hi To all
Just a small note and a request for corrections comments about player payments.
One thing I see is that as pointed out players will get a few tests under their belts and head to the bigger money market which is ok but what about Sharpie and some of the real hard core players who have given their all and can end up on the scrap heap or forced to head north just to play the game they love Eg: Gregan Smith and a few other cose they dont want to play wallaby rugby but would have loved to play super rugby at homehere in AUS. The ARU should have a clause in its player list that once a player get to a certian point in his career he can stay as a super rugby player and not have to be available to be selected for the wallabies
We have lost talent with this rule.
By having clubs set the salaries then we should be allowed a certain number of these senior players to be on the team lists and not have it interfeer with salary caps

Is the rule 'eligibility' not 'availability'?

That would suggest that Sharpie could continue playing Super Rugby for the Force regardless of whether he's AVAILABLE for the Wallabies simply because he's ELIGIBLE for them......am I seeing the distinction correctly?

Of course there's the bigger picture of whether Sharpie can afford to play in Perth without a top-up. We do need to remember that he's only 34 and the next contract will be his last as a player (presumably) therefore he needs to have a job to go to (shouldn't be hard to manage that) or a big enough Super fund to live the majority of his life on the proceeds (Unlikely at 34....doesn't matter how good he is)

I say, let him play and let the province and the sponsors replace the ARU top up to whatever level he had previously at their discretion. It keeps a loyal servant of Aussie rugby around for the end of his career, he helps develop the next breed of Aussie lock and the cost is all covered in the province (Assuming they think he's worth all that extra cash) could be a win win win!

[shasta]

Very noble sentiments re Nathan Sharpe. The real issues start when the bean counters have to weigh up whether spending the extra money to keep a champion like Sharpie is better value than dangling extras to keep a young gun like JOC.

One answer is to have a separate set per player amount, with strict criteria, that can be paid to long serving players and does not count in the cap.

[jargan83]

The AFL (not sure about the NRL - I vaguely recall reading they might bring it in ages ago) has the Veterans list where only half the salary of a long serving player counts towards the cap.

Something along those lines perhaps?
Posted via Mobile Device