Aussie Pro Rugby
-
@gunner the insurance is a large part, and isn't worth much anyway. Its the "participation levy" that stings, and Subbies have it better than some comps where you pay by the player, not the grade entered.
Has added 50% or more to some club registration fees for players.
-
@kiwimurph Makes sense - they need the injection of revenue it would bring. One wonders what they'd squander it on next time.
-
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@kiwimurph Makes sense - they need the injection of revenue it would bring. One wonders what they'd squander it on next time.
Last time around there was a very short lived attempt to provide more in the youth area after the RWC increased junior club enrolments. IIRC there were suddenly glossy booklets on training drills etc handed around.
It didn't last long, nor was it part of a well thought out strategy and pretty soon the Cup windfall was diverted into the pockets of the elite players and administrators. -
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@kiwimurph Makes sense - they need the injection of revenue it would bring. One wonders what they'd squander it on next time.
The economics have shifted since Australia won the 2003 hosting rights - between the hosting fee going up and public interest on a massive wane I'm not sure it is the slam dunk of a tournament you might think.
-
I have just read an article by Andrew Webster about the appointment of Castle. Interesting to note that he mentions that Pocock was still being paid his $820K salary while taking a "gap year" to play rugby in Japan. If you are bleeding money it doesn't make sense to pay any player who is fit but isn't available to play for your national team.
That being said, I am sure BFA is still paid his NZR salary while on a sabbatical. The same for BBBR during his personal leave.
-
@bovidae said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I have just read an article by Andrew Webster about the appointment of Castle. Interesting to note that he mentions that Pocock was still being paid his $820K salary while taking a "gap year" to play rugby in Japan. If you are bleeding money it doesn't make sense to pay any player who is fit but isn't available to play for your national team.
That being said, I am sure BFA is still paid his NZR salary while on a sabbatical. The same for BBBR during his personal leave.
They will be on their retainers but miss out on all of the extras.
As for Pocock that’s a crazy sum to start with -
@bovidae said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I have just read an article by Andrew Webster about the appointment of Castle. Interesting to note that he mentions that Pocock was still being paid his $820K salary while taking a "gap year" to play rugby in Japan. If you are bleeding money it doesn't make sense to pay any player who is fit but isn't available to play for your national team.
That being said, I am sure BFA is still paid his NZR salary while on a sabbatical. The same for BBBR during his personal leave.
Pocock spent some time playing in Japan didn't he? Wonder if he was getting paid twice during that period.
-
@rotated said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@antipodean said in Aussie Rugby in general:
@kiwimurph Makes sense - they need the injection of revenue it would bring. One wonders what they'd squander it on next time.
The economics have shifted since Australia won the 2003 hosting rights - between the hosting fee going up and public interest on a massive wane I'm not sure it is the slam dunk of a tournament you might think.
No 'slam dunk' as they're unlikely to be defending world champions, but a healthy injection into the coffers regardless.
@bovidae said in Aussie Rugby in general:
I have just read an article by Andrew Webster about the appointment of Castle. Interesting to note that he mentions that Pocock was still being paid his $820K salary while taking a "gap year" to play rugby in Japan. If you are bleeding money it doesn't make sense to pay any player who is fit but isn't available to play for your national team.
That being said, I am sure BFA is still paid his NZR salary while on a sabbatical. The same for BBBR during his personal leave.
Contrary to popular belief, Pocock isn't being paid while having a year off, it's just how he packaged his deal. Otherwise he would have been remunerated the same total value but across the two years he played.