Date change for Rebels player signings

[travelling_gerry]

Date change for Rebels player signings

MELISSA WOODS

February 22, 2010 - 5:34PM
AAP
The Melbourne Rebels' recruitment campaign will move up a notch after the Australian Rugby Union relaxed its stance on the new Super 15 franchise's player transfer deadline.
The Rebels, who last week announced their first and only signing in former England five-eighth Danny Cipriani, successfully argued to the ARU board that the restriction on signing Australian-based players was unfair.
The ARU, eager to avoid another Western Force poaching frenzy, had set a May 31 deadline but on Monday announced that deadline for all provinces would be brought forward to March 15.
It has also provided the start-up franchise with the additional concession of an extension for reaching its working capital requirement, which is part of its licence agreement.
That will ease pressure on the privately owned Rebels, who are reportedly seeking an additional $6m in private equity.
Investors have been waiting to see what kind of team the Rebels recruit before they commit to the franchise.
"The sooner we get moving in announcing key signings of Australian players, the sooner we can put together a financial proposition to build the brand of the Rebels so it was imperative that that changed to assist us," Rebels chief executive Brian Waldron of the date change.
"In essence this gives us 11 months to put together a team to run on the park and also to get the necessary funds together from a commercial and sponsorship point of view.
"I came out of last week's meeting with John O'Neill absolutely confident that the ARU was supportive of what we were trying to do and this confirms my belief.
"They want us to be successful, they want to help us be successful and at the same time ensure the existing provinces are protected where possible."
ARU Managing Director and CEO John O'Neill said players announcing midway through a season they would be switching to another team the following season was still a concern.
"However, weighing up the interests of the four existing Super Rugby provinces that wanted a level of protection around player retention, and the interests of the Rebels who want to fill their playing roster for 2011, we have come to the conclusion that the March 15 date is the best balance for all parties," he said in a statement.
"It was never going to be an exact science and after assessing the current situation, this is the best way forward."
The Rebels' wish-list includes five Wallabies - ACT Brumbies centre and former Australian skipper Stirling Mortlock, NSW five-eighth Berrick Barnes, Western Force flanker David Pocock and NSW prop Benn Robinson.
The Rebels are waiting to hear back from former league Test star Mark Gasnier, who is playing rugby in France, after the ARU tabled him a formal offer.

© 2010 AAP


http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news...0222-orfj.html

[AndyS]

So instead of preventing signings 'til the end of the competition, it is now Round 5 - hardly worth the bothering when we have already had Round 2. Sounds like the ARU folded big time...wonder if they have just got a taste of what private equity is really going to be like, the power of the phrase "protect the best interests of our investors", and the legal weight that can be brought to bear by people who can chuck a couple of million at a sports team for shits and giggles...

[shasta]

Any policy that discriminates between franchises is flawed and likely to be challenged. The restriction until after the competition is still the ideal. But must apply to all.

[Burgs]

Sounds to me that the ARU got baffled by a heap of bullshit when they awarded the franchise as at that time it was all roses and that was the best model.
Now there is no end of bitching and moaning about how hard done by they are.
At least we will have Bye Week to sort out our house but huge amount of pressure on the other three now having to ramp up their signings etc while in full competition.
This bastardised 4 Union owned, 1 Private owned is a recipe for disaster and court cases IMHO.

[mudskipper]

Well its on... It does give guys like Mortlock a chance to play a last home game... After all this time its only fair... Rebels are bound to bag a few from each team...

[tic]

This is such bullshit - and typical that the habitual whinger - Brian Waldron - got his way. Weak performance by JO'N!

The Rabble knew the rules when they signed up, but have not had the skill or club model to attract overseas players.

I'm cheering loudly for the existing four franchises in this battle.

[oxleymoron]

All we need now is the ARU to come out in mid May and criticise the performance of all australian teams in not making the S14 finals because of "off-field distractions".

[mudskipper]

I think the ARU realised in was in breach of the RUPA terms of contract... fair trade I guess... I'd rather it start earlier then teams and players know where they stand... Puts additional pressure on the Managers and player interviews for the coaches......

[Darren]

I'm cheering loudly for the existing four franchises in this battle.

As a Western Australian, I was cheering loudly for the WA franchise 5 years back. Now that we have a Vic team on the scene, I should really be cheering for them too - it's all good for Australian Rugby (sooner or later) but all I can think is fuck 'em

[Thequeerone]

Players have to protect their futures and get the best contracts etc.. but Round 5 means we'll be just into the comp and wondering who is leaving etc... remember the debacle last year it just puts players and spectators off the game and their team in the middle of the season.

[tic]

I think the ARU realised in was in breach of the RUPA terms of contract... fair trade I guess... I'd rather it start earlier then teams and players know where they stand... Puts additional pressure on the Managers and player interviews for the coaches......

It would only be "unfair trade" if the rules didn't apply equally to all franchises - but they do.

Let's reflect - the ARU proposed and The Rabble agreed, that this business plan would be different; it would be staffed almost entirely by foreign based players at little or no threat to the existing franchises. "No worries" said The Rabble, "we are the sporting capital of the galaxy, we have eleventy squillion dollars in corporate support, .....blah blah bullshit bullshit...."

Six weeks in and the ARU have torn up the play book. Anything goes and Rafferty's Rules apply.

If ever there was proof positive why a fifth team should NOT have been introduced, this is it.

Ironically, with the way the Reds have built a talented young pool who are starting to look good, they may be the franchise least at risk.

[Burgs]

In terms of "risk", I think you are right tic, it will be:

Waratahs & Brumbies
Force
Reds
I think the Brumbies will pay the price for warehousing while spending big and the Tahs will pay for being a very boring team.
We should only get bitten from our own fault of not finishing up the signatures as few are senior players and the resources are here to satisfy any extra needs with the departure of the Committee.

[mudskipper]

[QUOTE=tic;246025]It would only be "unfair trade" if the rules didn't apply equally to all franchises - but they do.
QUOTE]


You misunderstand me... RUPA are saying the players have the right to negotiate earlier and not be restricted. Therefore the ARU are letting the rebels in...

[AndyS]

Any restraint of trade argument is crap - it is like a supplier insisting that a buyer must make the purchase early, simply because it suits them. The ARU has every right in the world to say that they would not be signing any contract until June. It is not restraint of trade - players are still entirely free to sign contracts elsewhere. However it does seem to run counter to the Collective Bargaining Agreement with RUPA. If that is the case, then fair play and more fool the ARU for signing up to it.

[GIGS20]

Whatever RUPA says is not necessarily written in the conract though. They are a union, and it's thier job to push for things which they think SHOULD be in the contract, but aren't

That's the way unionism works best, equal tension between management and union giving a fair deal for both sides of the coin....If one side gets it's way out of balance with the other there's a risk of either the business going broke, or the staff having such crap conditions that they can't afford to work.

So where am I going with this? I reckon RUPA have seen an opportuinty for the highly paid mercenaries, (who have all apparently jumped ship with 1 year contracts, some with an option) to drive thier third party prices up to ridiculous levels and banking on SOMEBODY paying for them......whilst I don't think much of that will happen for the Force or Qld, I think the two teams that have gone all out to buy a premiership this year will lose either their match committee or the young up 'n' comers behind them in that period.

The price of an average player will rise sharply, focus will be taken of the business at hand and Australian rugby won't be better off as a result of the scheduling change.....the Union has gotten too much of a concession here!

Not that I'm sad about the Brumbies and the Tahs being raped at contracting time!