Cap concession bid for Phil Waugh

[beige]

NSW Waratahs coach Chris Hickey has called on the ARU to introduce a salary cap concession for veteran Super Rugby players, which could help them retain captain Phil Waugh.

The ARU is bringing in a $4.4 million salary cap next year to replace the player payment protocols under which the five Australian teams do not pay players more than $110,000 plus expenses. Veterans have been exempt under that system.

While teams can now pay players whatever they like, keeping in mind no player can be paid less than $60,000, there are no concessions for long-serving players.

Both the AFL and NRL have salary cap concessions for veteran players.

In the AFL only half the payment to veteran players over 30 or who have completed 10 years with their current club is included in the salary cap.

NRL clubs are allowed to spend an extra $200,000 on players who have been at one club for eight years.

Waugh, 31, has played for the Waratahs since 1999.

As openside flanker Waugh is unlikely to receive a top-up from the ARU, he needs to command a good salary from the Waratahs or may look to continue his career overseas.

"If you are going to have some mechanism in place such as a salary cap, there does need to be room to move on players, perhaps like Phil Waugh, who has played at the Waratahs for such a long period of time," Hickey said.

Rugby Union Players Association chief executive Greg Harris said a salary exemption for veteran players was worth considering.

"That would be an issue that could be discussed in the full context of the Collective Bargaining Agreement," Harris said.

Read more: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1226052860337

[jargan83]

There should be something in it for long serving players. I know the AFL doesn't suffer from having overseas clubs competing for signatures but when Aussie Super Rugby players look to top up the Super fund they usually go North. Having 5 sides is supposed to increase the depth in Australian Rugby but it won't do that if people start heading North when their Wallaby playing days are over. The Phil Waugh example is a good one - he can pass on stuff to younger players comming through at the Waratahs.

The uproar over Sharpies contract would come close but he wouldn't meet the criteria of a long serving player only because the Force have only been around for 5 and a bit years. (Although some loyalty from the ARU would have been nice on that front)

[James]

If they made concessions on the basis of length of time in the club then it would be massively biased against the Rebels and moderately biased against the Force. You could only fairly do it on the basis of consecutive time spent in Australian rugby.

[Burgs]

Maybe kick in at 6 six years for the Force and Rebels, rising to match eight years for the other three?

[jargan83]

If they made concessions on the basis of length of time in the club then it would be massively biased against the Rebels

By the sounds of it the Rebels won't be having any difficulty paying players (granted only media speculation so far)

With the cap comming in next year possibly look to have somthing similar to Burgs where long serving players can be counted at 6 years and raising to 8 with time ie long service kicks in after 7 years in 2013 and 8 in 2014 for the Force

I've seen that West Coast and Fremantle can recruit under the "Father/Son" rule - I'm not sure how that has worked

Perhaps special dispensation can be given to players who have joined new franchises by the ARU?

There would not be many cases of a player needing special dispensation anyway given that the Force largely recruited youth during it's initial recruiting phase

[shasta]

I've seen that West Coast and Fremantle can recruit under the "Father/Son" rule - I'm not sure how that has worked

Piss poor recruiting to miss Brandon Matera then.

Sorry - probably a worse sin than talking Mungoball.

[jargan83]

Piss poor recruiting to miss Brandon Matera then.

Sorry - probably a worse sin than talking Mungoball.

Not alot of hope for either West Aussie fumbleball sides to pick him up last year as the GC got all the draft picks that mattered

Brandon Matera is also the nephew of one of the Matera boys

West Coast could pick him up when he is done learning his game at GC and come back West if they can afford him given the salary cap concessions GC and GWS will receive

The only reason I brought up the father/son rule is that West Coast despite being a young club at the time picked up Ben Cousins under the Father/Son rule in 1995, just as a compariosn for an idea or two about how new clubs could handle a situation similar to what is being discussed.

[Burgs]

So lucky the smote has gone!!!

[hertryk]

The uproar over Sharpies contract would come close but he wouldn't meet the criteria of a long serving player only because the Force have only been around for 5 and a bit years. (Although some loyalty from the ARU would have been nice on that front).....
He's still been loyal to Australian Rugby....so some loyalty from the ARU SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXPECTED.....

[shasta]

Brandon Matera is also the nephew of one of the Matera boys

Not quite jargs. He's a nephew of 6 of the Matera boys, including Peter and Phil. But he's Wally's son. That's where the father/son thing comes in.

[GAFFA]

Not quite jargs. He's a nephew of 6 of the Matera boys, including Peter and Phil. But he's Wally's son. That's where the father/son thing comes in.

Brandon was also not eligible for the father son rule as Wally only played about 30 games for the eagles, your father had to have played a min of 100 games to qualify.
Posted via Mobile Device

[James]

You've got to ask yourself what the purpose of this type of clause is. I think the argument, as you suggest Jargs, is that these players have a lot to pass on to the young players and it keeps experience in Australia as well as rewarding those who stay in the Australian rugby system. So does it really matter whether they have played for one team for 8 years or if they have been in Australian rugby for 8 years?

Or, is this just Chris Hickey/the Waratahs trying to wrangle themselves a bit of an advantage?

[shasta]

Brandon was also not eligible for the father son rule as Wally only played about 30 games for the eagles, your father had to have played a min of 100 games to qualify.

OK - shows up my lack of knowledge of the AFL set-up. A little like the current discussion re new franchises being disadvantaged, although he did go to Fitzroy after a couple of seasons too.

[jargan83]

Cheers Shasta and GAFFA - I don't care enough about Vicball to look it up

You've got to ask yourself what the purpose of this type of clause is. I think the argument, as you suggest Jargs, is that these players have a lot to pass on to the young players and it keeps experience in Australia as well as rewarding those who stay in the Australian rugby system. So does it really matter whether they have played for one team for 8 years or if they have been in Australian rugby for 8 years?

Or, is this just Chris Hickey/the Waratahs trying to wrangle themselves a bit of an advantage?

That was the first example that occured to me. It works in the NRL/AFL so I assumed it would work in the Rugby set up. If the ARU kept the central payment method it would probably work the way you have hinted at.

Only problem is you may have players playing a while for a club who may not neccesarily play long term for Australia, where as in the past those players have just looked overseas for a gig there could be a chance of retaining that talent here in Oz.

I guess this is a work in progress that we will have to wait on

[Thequeerone]

IMHO this salary cap thing is plan stupid coming out of a rugby world cup year - I appreciate that the Euro is not worth as much how and ever a lot of talent will just vapourise