Giteau deal may change rugby
Burgs:
So it would appear that we may have won the race to sign the biggest off-contract (and available) player in 2006.
I must say that I will believe it when it comes from Giteau's own mouth as, although they would love to think otherwise, the media does not always get it right.
I seem to recall Ben Tune was meant to be a done deal as well!
In any case, what does TWF think about the reported figures being bandied about to "lure" Gits to the West?
Is this too much to be offering to a single player by a development team?
He has shown that he is not immune to injury and the Force have had no luck in that department!
Would the Force be better off paying that money to a couple of second tier players rather than one star?
What message will it give to the rest of our squad when the time comes to renegotiate and to the other off-contract players we want to sign up for '07?
Perhaps it goes deeper than that, perhaps such figures will help our juniors to decide to stay in rugby for that extra year to see if they too may be able to chase the big money?
Is it healthy for the code to have third party payments and industry involvment in the recruiting process?
Perhaps that is fair to balance out the natural inclination for Eastern States players and League converts to not come to the West?
Deliberately a lot of questions without answers here as I would love to see what you are thinking without influencing you with my own opinions.
One way or another this issue will help to shape the future of the Western Force, both in terms of playing style and recruitment in general, so have your say.
Giteau deal may change rugby
By Peter Jenkins
April 21, 2006
AUSTRALIA centre Matt Giteau could be the catalyst for a ground-breaking salary cap in Australian rugby union.
The chase for the Brumbies star - spiked by rumours that he could earn $900,000 a season if he signs for Western Force - has the Australian Rugby Union nervous about how to handle the danger of spiralling payments to top-end players.
Giteau's shift to Perth is imminent, with The Daily Telegraph able to reveal his manager was in the city yesterday to meet potential corporate backers prepared to help bankroll the move.
The rise of third-party deals has Queensland boss Theo Psaros calling for a salary cap and Brumbies chief executive Andrew Fagan having an open mind on the idea.
Both fear third-party arrangements will be more readily available in the Perth and Sydney markets and are already being leveraged as key recruitment tools.
The Reds and Brumbies believe they could struggle to compete for leading players unless funds are sourced from elsewhere in the future.
"We would reserve the right to look at options, a salary cap or something else, if we genuinely felt the game's interests were being jeopardised," ARU operations chief Rob Clarke said last night.
"We would always want to ensure provinces don't go broke and we would also do whatever we could to protect the integrity of the contracting process.
"I think there's also been a new dimension come into play with the number and (worth) of third party agreements on the increase across the board."
Players can access the corporate dollar, as long as their agents attract the off-field income. Provinces are not allowed to attract the sponsors as part of negotiations.
But it remains one of two grey areas in the existing contract system.
The other is a so-called gentlemen's agreement where provinces put a ceiling on Super 14 salaries of around $110,000 - before match payments plus car and accommodation extras are added.
The ARU then provides top-ups for leading players and an incentive of more than $10,000 a Test.
There are claims that Giteau is being dangled more than $200,000 extra per season to go to Perth.
Waratahs boss Fraser Neill says "three kitchen sinks" have been tossed at Giteau.
Force chief executive Peter O'Meara denied he had offered Giteau an increase on the terms Force tabled to the ARU, or that the franchise had secretly stitched together third-party sponsorships.
"No three kitchen sinks here," he said.
"We haven't even thrown one. But if player managers get off their arses and find opportunities to build a player's profile ... we do have a very strong commercial precinct here, probably a lot stronger than Canberra."
For that reason, Fagan is wary of third-party deals which rugby league includes in its salary cap.
There is no doubt the advent of the Force has ramped up bidding for key players.
But Giteau is the first marquee Wallaby to test the water with all four franchises.
The result is that ARU officials are worried third-party deals could see sponsorship funds, earmarked for a state's grassroots, go to pay players.
Rugby Union Players Association boss Tony Dempsey said his union would oppose any move towards a salary cap.
"We are proponents of free market forces," he said.
Dempsey also claimed the perception that Super 14 teams could only pay players a maximum $110,000 a year was false.
He said the collective bargaining agreement between the ARU and RUPA - which runs until 2008 - banned collusion between state unions and the ARU to limit player payments.
The Daily Telegraph
