ARU to consider draft for Super 15

ARU to consider draft for Super 15

• Bret Harris
• From: The Australian
• May 05, 2010 12:00AM

THE ARU is seriously considering introducing a draft-style mechanism to distribute young talent around the five Australian Super 15 franchises from next year.



Under the proposal, each of the teams - Brumbies, Melbourne Rebels, NSW Waratahs, Queensland Reds and Western Force - would contract 30 players plus five rookies.
The 25 rookies would be placed in a combined talent pool, known as the "Expanded Player Squad", which could be tapped by any of the teams if they incurred injuries during the season.
If the system was in place this year, for example, when Western Force sustained injuries to back-rowers David Pocock and Richard Brown at the start of the season, they could have recruited a young flanker such as Michael Hooper, who at the time was on an academy contract at the Brumbies but rose to the first team.
It is understood the Super 15 teams would bid for the rookies at an auction every September.


The proposal would reduce the warehousing of talented young players in state academies and provide them with experience at Super rugby level.
The EPS proposal is being driven by ARU high performance manager David Nucifora, who was exposed to a similar system in New Zealand while coaching the Auckland-based Blues.
Given the draft nature of the proposal, it would require the support of the Rugby Union Players Association, which is discussing the idea with the ARU as part of the renegotiation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Acting RUPA chief executive Omar Hassanein supported the proposal in principle, but would not officially endorse it until he had fully digested the details of the scheme, which could have wide-ranging ramifications.
"I can see the reasoning behind it," Hassanein said. "Everyone is supportive of a system which encourages the best players to be on the field.
"Until we see the details it's hard to say whether it's great or something we would oppose. In principle it's good, but there are things that need to be ironed out."
Waratahs chief executive Jim L'Estrange said there was some validity to the idea but he was concerned about the affect it would have on teams' succession planning and culture building.
"No one wants to warehouse players, but you don't want to break your culture or your succession planning," L'Estrange said. "There are also IP (intellectual property) issues to consider with players jumping from one team to another.
"Also, if a player plays one game for his new team he can't go back to his old team.
"There will be a lot of discussion among the CEOs. We have to do the right thing by Australian rugby and the teams. We'll have to weigh it up."
Brumbies chief executive Andrew Fagan was more positive, describing the idea as a "solid concept".
"We don't have a competition beneath the Super 14 to develop players," Fagan said. "This concept would expose an additional 25 players to Super rugby.
"We already did it this year when we let (Brumbies academy hooker) Nathan Charles go to the Force. There is merit in it."
Fagan said he wanted to know how the scheme would be paid for before he backed it.
"I still have questions about how it will be funded," Fagan said. "There's a lack of clarity about that. I don't have an extra $200,000 to pay for it.
"The money would have to come from elsewhere."


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225862279333

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by travelling_gerry

If the system was in place this year, for example, when Western Force sustained injuries to back-rowers David Pocock and Richard Brown at the start of the season, they could have recruited a young flanker such as Michael Hooper, who at the time was on an academy contract at the Brumbies but rose to the first team.

---

Would we really? Even though the projected return for those players was during the season and we were adequately supplied with Flankers? I'm not asking whether it would be smart for us to do so, simply whether the rules would allow such a transaction, mid-season and then allow the player to return to the academy from which he came once the players are fit again. I think that would be horrible to manage!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by travelling_gerry

Waratahs chief executive Jim L'Estrange said there was some validity to the idea but he was concerned about the affect it would have on teams' succession planning and culture building.
"No one wants to warehouse players, but you don't want to break your culture or your succession planning," L'Estrange said. "There are also IP (intellectual property) issues to consider with players jumping from one team to another.

---

How the hell would succession planning be any different with thirty contracted players and five rookies rather than 31 contracted players and an academy? L'Estrange has his hand on it. NSW rugby are against the idea ergo it'll never fly!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by travelling_gerry

Brumbies chief executive Andrew Fagan was more positive, describing the idea as a "solid concept".

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by travelling_gerry

The proposal would reduce the warehousing of talented young players in state academies and provide them with experience at Super rugby level.

---

That's a surprise, Fagan's the CEO of the largest rugby player warehouse in the Southern Hemisphere, why is he in favour of it?
"We already did it this year when we let (Brumbies academy hooker) Nathan Charles go to the Force. There is merit in it."[/quote]
And we thank you for him.......I hope he signs, he deserves a decent crack.
(why didn't you let us have a loan of a promising flyhalf for half a season though?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by travelling_gerry

Fagan said he wanted to know how the scheme would be paid for before he backed it.
"I still have questions about how it will be funded," Fagan said. "There's a lack of clarity about that. I don't have an extra $200,000 to pay for it.
"The money would have to come from elsewhere."

---

Would you be broke Andrew because of the multiple millions of dollars you have spent buying superstars to allow you to warehouse young talent?

My only other question.....Would this 'expanded player list' replace the current academy system, which (I believe) is unlimited in number? If so, surely that would REDUCE the number of players who have exposure to the rigours of top-flight rugby.

If this was mapped OVER the current academy system (say replacing the Tier 1 academy places) which (Again I think) are counted in the player roster I thoink it could be a great idea. Maybe open up the academies in the draft, and clubs negotiate in September for transfers. If you allow a transfer fee system to be in place that gives a team the ability to negotiate with the other team for a player, but also allows the team developing that talent to set a worth for that player.

let's say Nathan Charles is the best thing since sliced bread, and the Force want to add him to their expanded list. The Brumbies have all their hopes pinned on him and have no plan B for the Hooker position in the next ten years. THe Brumbies can't say no you can't have him, but they can say he's worth this much to us. If they're smart, they set the transfer fee at an appropriate level that they can go out and buy or develop (who am I kidding, they're not Queensland) another hooker to fill the gap!

it might work!

I think you have answered your own concerns re L'Estrange and "succession planning" (edit) in your last paragraph GIGS, it's not the numbers but the surety of having them the following season that will be diminished.
I'm not sold on the idea, but could be swayed with further info.
At this stage I'm seeing it discouraging WA from developing talent when it could either cynically just draft 100% or proactively develop great players to see them stripped by teams with greater depth but maybe not the talent that season.
I think warehousing works both ways, the player has to be prepared to get splinters and slow their playing profile/experience.
I would be more comfortable with player initiated contact to other teams if they believe they aren't getting a fair go.
The trouble behind any of it is you just don't know what opportunities are going to unfold through the season and off season.
Round 2 or 3 last year you could understand if Ben Whittaker was looking elsewhere, ten months later he is the starting Hooker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burgs

At this stage I'm seeing it discouraging WA from developing talent when it could either cynically just draft 100% or proactively develop great players to see them stripped by teams with greater depth but maybe not the talent that season.

---

That's a good point actually - it works in NZ where the whole country plays rugby (that's how Doug Howlett came through) but we have a couple of "outliers" in the Force and the Rebels over here.

The ARU should just keep doing what its doing. Strongly encourage teams to lone out academy players who haven't/aren't likely to be used. We have 4 scrumhalves and unfortunately that means Mark Swanepoel hasn't seen much game time. I'd be more than happy for him to go off for a while to play for another team. Despite the fact I think they are dickheads, I am grateful to the Brumbies that they let Charles come over.

Ditto the last sentence.

Perhaps that's all that is needed. however an expansion of the playing group, without watering down the talent pool too much would be a good idea. Let's face it, you need 22-plus players in a squad, you then need an extended training group for injury cover, succession planning and what not. What's to stop the playing group being pared down to a reasonable bare minimum, but increasing the extended group to include more players in the professional training, S&C, etc that will help ensure more of them make it to full contract level?

The fact that the proposed system would make it very difficult for the emerging players to pursue serious study doesn't seem to have been taken into account.

RUPA should bring that up if they're doing their job properly.

I think what has happened with Charles is exactly the problem, albeit to the Force's advantage in this instance.
He came across as a loan player and now there is every likelihood that he will be lost to the Brumbies as the Force have offered him a contract.
If we were to loan say Swanepoel to the Rebels next year then I'd damn well want him back at the end of the season!

Hmmmm maybe, but surely he would have been targeted at the end of the season anyway whether he was loaned or not? Since they were so adamant (even jumping the gun) about Matt Toomua not replacing Andre, I'd suggest that they said yes to the trial because Charles didn't figure large in their plans. I guess they're just looking to see who the next Wallaby Hooker is and buy his contract out........Ironically, the way he's playing, it could indeed be Nathan Charles in that position of being bought for a MOTZA by the Brumbies.

I reckon the loan just sped up the process.