Force find cash in attempt to keep Giteau

[lara93]

Force find cash in attempt to keep Giteau
7th October 2008, 6:45 WST

Force find cash in attempt to keep Giteau

Western Force have found a sponsor to compensate Matt Giteau for the money he lost in the Firepower collapse – but the deal is likely to hinge on the Wallabies fly-half committing to the Perth Super 14 club until the 2011 Rugby World Cup.

Failed fuel technology company Firepower helped lure Giteau to Perth from Canberra in 2007 for three seasons with a $750,000 a year incentive comprising $400,000 in cash and the balance in shares.

The shares are now worthless but Force has lined up replacement cash deals for Giteau and fellow Test stars Cameron Shepherd, Ryan Cross, Drew Mitchell and Scott Staniforth, who were also sponsored by Firepower.

PERTH
DAVE HUGHES

[Moses]

Western Force have found a sponsor to compensate Matt Giteau for the money he lost in the Firepower collapse

Shouldn't Giteau's Manager be setting up 3rd party deals, not the Force?

[laura]

Matt Giteau is Matt Giteau's manager ie. he manages his own career.

So what if he asked RugbyWA for a little help in finding deals or maybe they offered to find more to make up for Firepower deal going belly up. Who cares?! His decisions are down to him at the end of the day and as if you would reject advice/help when you have a full on Wallabies schedule to adhere to as well.

[blueandblack]

Matt Giteau is Matt Giteau's manager.

Thats creepy (more creepy than me even). The manager and the managee having the same name.

[James]

Shouldn't Giteau's Manager be setting up 3rd party deals, not the Force?

I'd have thought that'd be the case but then again perhaps the ARU has allowed special circumstances given the situation. They've done it before for Lote.

I don't know what the ARU rules are surrounding 3rd party deals but perhaps there is a loophole if he is already signed. ie that you can't make the deals to sign players but you can to make up for losses.

[brokendown gunfighter]

he has a new manager,James Erskine

[GIGS20]

It has to be the 'Lote Law' this is pretty much exactly what the were pinged for last year, the ARU helped out with Lote when all that hoo hah was going on.

I guess the made a request to be allowed to help, given the special circumstances. surely they wouldn't get caught a second time.

[Thequeerone]

It's another Farce - third party deals linked to contract extensions (smart move!) we know to much about this stuff that's what makes it so dodgy.

3rd party to me means Mr Harris or similar is in the room when the deal is signed - or is that an incorrect reading of the situation

[.X.]

As I understand it RugbyWA were given permission by the ARU to fix up the broken deals because of the Firepower collapse.

If it was a new deal RugbyWA can not get involved at all.

[Thequeerone]

So how is it supposed to work at the moment

Player X says yeah I fancy my chances with the Force (Tahs ...) Agent of X (lets call him Mr Y) flies to Perth and says Mr X is coming to town to whom .. people who RugbyWa say or anything else he can lay his hands on.

Call me cynical but this is institutionalised prostitution - the article I read today seemed to think that Mr Y should be cut out of the equation and that 3rd party deals would be better handled by the Franchises - wasn't that part of Gits beef is that he was not impressed with whatever the previous agent organised.

[Jehna]

As I understand it RugbyWA were given permission by the ARU to fix up the broken deals because of the Firepower collapse.

If it was a new deal RugbyWA can not get involved at all.

Also my understanding Ex. However, it could simply be a case of the journo's confusing terms again with respect to who exactly brokered the deal. I'm pretty sure RugbyWA have learned their lesson on brokering illegal third party deals and wouldn't be taking that path unless there was permission

[NTT]

TQ1, this is how i understand the current 3rd party dealings are suppose to work:
Player X is coming off contract. Franchise approaches Player Xs manager/management. 3rd party sponsor contacts franchise to suggest recruiting player X. Franchise agrees or disagrees. Franchise makes offer. 3rd party sponsor contacts player Xs manager/management and makes offer. Player X makes decision. Player Xs manager / management negotiates with both Franchise and 3rd party sponsor. Player X makes decision.

[laura]

I think manager finds a club who wants player, both meet with club and then if player likes the look of it all manager finds some 3rd party deals to make the deal sweeter so they get more for their buck being at said club. I think the managers also liase with the 3rd party people ie. carbon bar saying yes/no my client can/can't make an appearance. Im thinking their manager is kind of like their PA.

I agree with TQ1 about the prostitution part and how they kind of sell the players out for the best deal and the manager is like their pimp. It seems like they are trying to cut out the managers and it maybe seems like RugbyWA is trying to do all they can for the players to keep them here and find the biggest deals. I dont know if thats good or bad though, becase they would be one-eyed in it all and could just end up making the players all over-paid just so that they can retain them. Personally I think 3rd party deals are a bit kiff and they should maybe be sponsored or endorsed with other stuff instead of bribed to stay. Or maybe they should paid a base rate and then paid extra according to their performance over the season.

I dont think Gits was upset by the Firepower thing, I think maybe just annoyed that he lost 400,000 but I'm pretty sure they will have found him something else now, like I think Volvo being the Force's new sponsor and Gits already having a Volvo is a cheap way for Volvo to get free advertising but i reckon they should pay him something and i think there would already be something to repay the money he lost through firepower collapse.

I also find it kind of coincidental that Gits and Drew had the same manager who got them both a deal with the Firepower and then both Firepower and the manager turned out to be dodgy. The manager wanted them to give him a cut because of the deals and 'stress' caused by trying to sue him. But thats just me speculating.

Everything is very confidential and behind the scenes and we just get the shiny fascade. I think maybe if they were a bit more public with it there wouldnt be as much speculation and rumours and everyone would be a lot happier.

[Thequeerone]

Laura I think you've nailed it - transparency is the key to all of this if bank X was giving some bucks to player Y you would think more kindly about that Bank especially if the player was doing the right thing - wish the "managers" were more like PA's or settlement agents i.e. doing the paperwork but as they seem to be on a 20-30% cut it just doesn't seem like a good deal for the players.

[NTT]

Im pretty sure you'll find that whichever 3rd party sponsor is involved would approach the franchise to see if the franchise wants to recruit the player, then 3rd party sponsor would be pointed in the players managers direction.
Its not really prostitution, the players are simply hiring managers to get themselves the best contract they can. Its the nature of the beast. Without the current 3rd party sponsor system, i doubt there would be many Wallabies left playing in Aus. The franchises simply could not afford to pay comparable salaries to players without them. For all of it's complexity, it's about the only thing keeping players in Aus.
From what today's paper was saying, the ARU are looking at allowing the franchises the power to organise the 3rd party sponsor instead of players managers because some players are losing up to 20% of their salaries to the manager in representation fees.