0
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/down_dis.png)
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/up_dis.png)
Melbourne Rebels go over Brian Waldron's contracts
- Nick Leys
- From: The Daily Telegraph
- April 29, 2010 12:00AM
![]()
Under fire ... Brian Waldron. Source: The Daily Telegraph
THE Melbourne Rebels rugby union franchise is "having a second look" at the contracts and salaries of its players in light of the Storm salary cap rorting scandal.
Chairman Harold Mitchell said the Rebels were now in the middle of that process following the resignation last Friday of CEO Brian Waldron - the man blamed as being the key figure in the salary cap rort.
Mitchell confirmed members of the board were examining player contracts when asked about allegations players had been offered "side deals" on top of their salaries by Waldron.
"I can accept people will be saying these things but of course we are having a second look, we would be mad not to," Mitchell said.
"If they weren't signed, I'm sure we don't need to discuss them."
Yesterday Waldron refused to comment on allegations he had received a $275,000 payout from the Rebels.
"Just leave it today guys, OK," a tracksuited Waldron said outside his Melbourne home.
Waldron joined the Melbourne Rebels club on January 11.
Since then they signed former England five-eighth Danny Cipriani, former Wallaby captain Stirling Mortlock and have held discussions with former rugby league international Mark Gasnier and South African brothers Bismarck and Jannie du Plessis.
There is no suggestion any of these players were offered anything other than standard player contracts.
Mitchell said the Rebels were "dealing with player managers, not players" in relations to examining agreements and making sure everything was in accordance with Australian Rugby Union regulations.
There are no salary cap restrictions in the ARU, only strict rules over third-party payments.
Meanwhile, a poll of NRL club chief executives - taken last week before the Storm cap revelations - show the majority are in favour of keeping the salary cap at its current $4.1 million.
Twelve CEOs said the cap should stay as it is, while three - believed to be Brisbane, Parramatta and Melbourne - would support an increase. Cronulla argued that the current cap is already too high. All 16 clubs were united in the view that the cap is a commercial reality and beneficial to the code's viability, but it does spell more bad news for the code.
Until a new TV rights deal is signed in 2013 the NRL's brightest young talents - already being head-hunted by the game's chief market rivals - will continue to be given little incentive other than representative jumpers to stay put.
The AFL, which secured then-Broncos captain-in-waiting Karmichael Hunt last year, is a genuine threat.
Despite the headaches, NRL spokesman John Brady denied the $4.1 million cap was preventing the NRL competing with rival codes.
"Everyone agrees we want to keep as many players as we can," Brady said last night.
"The game and the clubs work very hard to do that. I don't think there's any question we compete with our market rivals. We return more of the revenue to players than any other code. On the most part, we do very well and retain the great majority of players. But we cannot undermine the general health of the game and the competition. That has to be our primary focus."
Titans CEO Michael Searle dismissed union's latest poaching raid by pointing to the return of Wendell Sailor, Lote Tuqiri and Mat Rogers.
"Union's last experiment with signing rugby league players wasn't that fruitful," Searle said.
The NRL has already considerably increased the annual salary cap since its inception in 1999 at $3.25 million.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/spo...-1225859629330
This has me confused.
With the private equity model at work here are Melbourne obligated to give the max Super 14 payment of $120,000 to it's players, then ARU top ups plus any 3rd party deals? Or can they in theory spend as much as they want to get a team together?
surely they have to stick to the contracting protocols, but raise their own funding. If a player has an ARU contract I would expect them to be paid the same as any other ARU contracted player. Marquee players are (I Believe) not hampered by that restriction, so they can give a Danny Cipriati anything they can afford.
C'mon the![]()
![]()
So obviously if it is an Australian player they have to stick to that max Super 14 contract amount and then factor in the possibilty of 3rd Party money?
2/3's of those mentioned where kicked out of union, one for taking drugs and the other for well supposedly breaking teams rules after committing adultery. Both repeatedly brought the Wallabies into disrepute with repeated infringements.
How does Dell go from drug taker kicked out of Rugby Union to pin up boy for the NRL and Foxsports? The mungoes musnt set the bar high is all I can say
Generally speaking you aren’t learning much if your lips are moving!!!
Just two words to say to that: Justin & Harrison.
Well plus another four - Lorenzo Bruno Nero Dallaglio
Or maybe another two Matt Stevens..........shall I stop?
Neil Francis?
Johann Ackerman?
I've only started with national team representatives. Glass houses comes to mind.
"The main difference between playing League and Union is that now I get my hangovers on Monday instead of Sunday - Tom David
Last edited by sandgroperrugby; 29-04-10 at 13:49.
Generally speaking you aren’t learning much if your lips are moving!!!
I don't think any of them (Union examples) have been held up as model citizens or enjoy much media profile though Shasta?
Watched "The Big Del" on the NRL show last night, he would have a fascinating conversation with Warwick Capper!
"Bloody oath we did!"
Nathan Sharpe, Legend.
"The main difference between playing League and Union is that now I get my hangovers on Monday instead of Sunday - Tom David
Those mungoes did suck pretty hard at union though!
C'mon the![]()
![]()
how can a wallaby suck