nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Central Contracts and their Future

Foxtrol

Up until recently whether you liked them or not central contracts seemed to be doing their job at keeping the top Irish produced players at home but given the changing circumstances are they still fit for purpose?

Yesterdays decision to give one to Declan Fitzpatrick is the latest in a long line of perplexing central deals made by the IRFU. These were largely glossed over in the past when they were doing their job at keep talent here but with the departure of Sexton and the question marks hanging over the future of Heaslip, Earls and SOB should they now be looked at more closely? The argument is not that other players shouldn't get central deals until these guys sign but more should IRFU spend part of their budget giving central contracts to players who are not top tier (in this case currently neither a starter for his province or country) while at the same time they play hardball with their top talent, refusing to give the best out-half in the northern hemisphere pay parity and asking one of the top 8s in Europe and vice-captain of Ireland to take a sizable pay cut.

Even looking at the economics of central deals being made with non-key players it doesn't make much sense. Central contracted guys are on a higher set wage with no bonus for international appearances so in this case if during Fitzpatrick's contract Moore (or whoever else) gets ahead of him (or he is again injured) then the IRFU will be paying him a higher standard wage and also paying extra game bonuses to Moore. Surely it would make more sense for the IRFU to hold off hitching themselves to a player until he has proven he is a likely starter.

There is also a point brought up a lot that all players are paid by the IRFU in the end so it doesn't make a difference what type of contract they are on. In a macro sense this is true but it leads to the question what then is the point of having a two tier system at all, should the IRFU do all the contract negotiation themselves, seeing as they end up paying it either way, or conversely should the IRFU just distribute the central contract money evenly between the provinces and let them make the deals for the players they want within their budget?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Jackass]

The IRFU should withhold funding for roughly five indespensible players to the national team to be kept in Ireland with union backing (a shortlist being along the lines of Sexton, Healy, O'Connell, O'Brien & Murray for example).

The remaining budget should be used to assist the provinces in keeping their players through their own financial turnover and IRFU assistance (i.e. Leinster offering Heaslip a contract, topped up by an IRFU portion to bridge gape between shortfall versus French teams)

A tier system of players should be forumlated with maximum of 5 MUST KEEP players at the top tier, a second tier of about 10 to 15 players of strategic importance to the national game and the final tier being take them or leave them, not bust the bank though. (and French teams et al wont be busting the bank for them either, so should be reasonable that we can keep them if we need them).

So my numbers above isn't even protecting a starting Irish 23, but merely porotecting about our 5 best players and fighting to keep the rest of our best 15 and they take priority over the rest.

Example tier 1: Healy, O'Connell, O'Brien, Murray, Sexton
Example tier 2: Best, #1 Tighthead (up in the air at the moment), Heaslip, O'Mahony, Bowe, R. Kearney

(That's 11 players - but could budget for around 15 as priority - 3 year deals, get them wrapped up as early as possible, reopen talks after 2 years, try and keep their situations water tight)

Bottom line though, the IRFU agenda is not in line with what would seem logical and in the best interest of everybody. As seen all around Europe, there are a lot of highly political disputes and frictions between unions and clubs and further highlights the situation here where unions aren't always incentivised to work in best interests of clubs, we just happen to have the most restrained clubs from acting out or speaking out, but it's bubbling under the surface I have absolutely no doubt.

Lest it be highlighted also that we are in the mess we are in right now largely to do with complete mismanagement of the financial side of the game by the IRFU and like any good hirarchy, those losses and bad decisions are being passed on to the provinces as a result.

miroslavklose

Is there any official confirmation that Fitzpatrick is on a central contract? I think not. From what I've seen, the report is that the IRFU and Ulster rugby have agreed new contracts with DF and Stephen Ferris. That is how most, if not all, provincial contracts are announced, given that the IRFU and the provinces are effectively one and the same. I think people are adding 2 + 2 together here and getting 3.

Foxtrol

miroslavklose wrote: »

Is there any official confirmation that Fitzpatrick is on a central contract? I think not. From what I've seen, the report is that the IRFU and Ulster rugby have agreed new contracts with DF and Stephen Ferris. That is how most, if not all, provincial contracts are announced, given that the IRFU and the provinces are effectively one and the same. I think people are adding 2 + 2 together here and getting 3.

Ulster announcement says 'Irish contract' in relation to Fitzpatrick. Would be very strange wording if it's not a central contract.

EDIT: And even if he wasn't the issue of central contract still needs to be discussed. Should they be saved for our top tier guys or spread out between the provinces to a number of guys who are a lower level but will ask for less?

PlayerTrader13

Foxtrol wrote: »

Ulster announcement says 'Irish contract' in relation to Fitzpatrick. Would be very strange wording if it's not a central contract.

EDIT: And even if he wasn't the issue of central contract still needs to be discussed. Should they be saved for our top tier guys or spread out between the provinces to a number of guys who are a lower level but will ask for less?

Should be for the top guys in positions.with poor depth.. TH, SH come to mind.

No way should Trimble have one, POM shouldn't have one.

Murray makes sense total sense. Ryan, not so sure..

ScissorPaperRock

Isn't the value of the contract what should be of concern, rather than whether it is central or not?

I can't imagine that Deccie is on anywhere near the same salary as Heaslip, for example.

The assumption that a central contract means big bucks is leading to an overreaction IMO.

[Deleted User]

If guys like Trimble and D. Fitzpatrick (previously - D'Arcy & DOC) are centrally contracted, it points towards the IRFU using the central contract system not for elite players, but for trying to fund the provinces which produce internationals with a degree of parity.

However that doesn't really make logical sense from an economic or game perspective.

For example, Connacht could supply 6 starters for the International side from 2018-2022 while Leinster have 3 players in and out of the 23. Ulster's 9 and Munster's 5 make up the remainder of the "modal" players the matchday 23.

Yet the IRFU appears to aim to have a similar number (or a similar €value) of centrally contracted players at each province. Why should Ulster receive the same as Leinster for 3 times the "product" from a national perspective?

Yet again, we're seeing weird implementation of the central contracting system. It's a bit of A, a bit of B and a little bit of C.

What they could/should do is use the central contracts to keep key players in the country, regardless of what province they play for (*developed at).

This is on the proviso that the IRFU understand that players developed by a province that grow to be worth €X p/a should be paid that. If that means that Connacht develop a team that is worth twice the wages of the Leinster team, that the IRFU should be aware of this and pay them appropriately (provincial contracts).

Importantly, this must be from within. I believe the IRFU can and should ringfence 'marquee' signings wages differently

If the IRFU tries to "wage match" between the provinces for players that have been developed by them, and used by the national side, there will be massive inefficiencies. If the IRFU uses the central contracts for Elite players only, with 1 year deals being the norm, they can incentivise players massively to remain in Ireland to compete for the "top up".

Example:
Stephen Ferris is undoubtedly an Ulster Rugby "product", coming through their underage system and Academy.
Ferris is paid €x p/a by Ulster Rugby. In 2015 he signs a new 3 year deal.
In 2017, Ferris is offered a central contract for the coming international season.
Stephen Ferris is now paid €x p/a by Ulster Rugby and also receives €y p/a from IRFU for the 2017 season.

In the IRFU budget, it has paid Stephen Ferris his "deserved provincial wage" through Ulster Rugby. It has also paid Stephen Ferris his "Elite International Player wage" through the Ireland Team.

Note : these contracts would probably need to be more than double the match appearance bonus that "standard" provincial players could get
Also : The eligibility of players playing outside of Ireland to receive a Central Contract 'top up' could be discussed.
Also2 : If we have 3 Elite players who are competing for a single position, none of them should be centrally contracted.

awec

I think the IRFU would rather pay 3 players at 200k a year than 1 player at 600k a year. I think they want to avoid a situation of only having a few very highly paid players centrally contracted.

If they start paying these "top tier" players very highly then where does the money come from? It obviously comes from the contracts of everyone else.

So while the likes of Sean O'Brien will command top dollar, what does that mean for the likes of Luke Fitzgerald or Keith Earls who won't? Or the young talent coming through?

Theta

The IRFU have started wording the press releases saying that ALL contracts signed in the provinces are "Contracts with the IRFU" as technically they are. They are not central contracts.

Wording from yesterday,

The IRFU and Ulster Rugby are pleased to announce that forwards Declan Fitzpatrick and Stephen Ferris have both agreed new contracts

Wording from earlier this month

James Cronin, John Ryan and Cathal Sheridan have all signed two-year contracts with Munster Rugby and the IRFU

PlayerTrader13

Theta wrote: »

The IRFU have started wording the press releases saying that ALL contracts signed in the provinces are "Contracts with the IRFU" as technically they are. They are not central contracts.

Wording from yesterday,

Wording from earlier this month

Ulster site said deccie fits signed an Irish contract and Ferris and Ulster one

Foxtrol

awec wrote: »

I think the IRFU would rather pay 3 players at 200k a year than 1 player at 600k a year. I think they want to avoid a situation of only having a few very highly paid players centrally contracted.

If they start paying these "top tier" players very highly then where does the money come from? It obviously comes from the contracts of everyone else.

So while the likes of Sean O'Brien will command top dollar, what does that mean for the likes of Luke Fitzgerald or Keith Earls who won't? Or the young talent coming through?

What is the point of having 3 players at 200k a year and none of them guaranteed as being starters, it means that they could either be pushed ahead of another player who is more deserving (which has been claimed in the past) or the non-central contract player starts and has to be paid game bonuses while the average central contracted player still get paid his topped up wage for sitting on his arse.

If it doesn’t come from the central kitty the money comes from the provincial budget which means the provinces have to be more frugal with their NIQ signings and the fringe players they keep on. It’s also not about paying the top tier ‘very highly’, everyone knows that we cant afford it, it’s about not being ridiculously frugal (no parity for Sexton, Heaslip asked to take a sizeable paycut) while handing out central contracts to the likes of Fitz and Ryan who are not guaranteed starters.

Theta

PlayerTrader13 wrote: »

Ulster site said deccie fits signed an Irish contract and Ferris and Ulster one

From the Ulster Rugby site,

The IRFU and Ulster Rugby are pleased to announce that forwards Declan Fitzpatrick and Stephen Ferris have agreed new contracts.

Zzippy

Theta wrote: »

The IRFU have started wording the press releases saying that ALL contracts signed in the provinces are "Contracts with the IRFU" as technically they are. They are not central contracts.

Wording from yesterday,

Wording from earlier this month

I noticed that recently, seems to be a move away from identifying who is on a central contract, just saying all players are contracted to IRFU.

Foxtrol

Theta wrote: »

From the Ulster Rugby site,

From the Ulster Rugby site,

Fitzpatrick, who has been capped seven times for Ireland, has signed a new two-year Irish contract that will keep him at Ulster until at least the summer of 2016.

Don't know why they'd say 'Irish contract' if it wasn't a central one.

miroslavklose

PlayerTrader13 wrote: »

Ulster site said deccie fits signed an Irish contract and Ferris and Ulster one

Unless you saw an earlier version that's since been amended, no it doesn't.

freyners

When marmion and henshaw signed earlier this season the wording was the same as fitzpatricks.

blackdog1

What they should do is sign the players a year before contract ends. That gives them plenty of time at the negotiation table with no outside interference. Obrien should have been sat down with last may not December.

jacothelad

The answer is simple. Get all those that Foxtrol wants to be on central contracts to play tight head and burn Fitzpatrick. Solved.:D:D:D

yimrsg

Fitzpatrick is much more important to Ulster as Afoa is leaving shortly so maybe they needed to secure his future, from an Irish POV he's not that important to secure as Ross, Moore, Archer, White are alternatives.

Foxtrol

miroslavklose wrote: »

Unless you saw an earlier version that's since been amended, no it doesn't.

Yes it does.

http://www.ulsterrugby.com/news/latest/2014/01/contracts-for-fitzpatrick-ferris.aspx

See the second paragraph.

Foxtrol

jacothelad wrote: »

The answer is simple. Get all those that Foxtrol wants to be on central contracts to play tight head and burn Fitzpatrick. Solved.:D:D:D

I know you're attempting to be funny but he's just as much able to play for Ireland on a provincial contract as a central one but when he's on a provincial one he's not going to be paid the higher rate for sitting on his ass if he's overtaken by Moore or ends up out injured like he's spent most of his time the last few seasons.

This isn't solely about Fitzpatrick, I was hoping it would evolve into a general discussion about whether central contracts are still the best way to keep the top players in Ireland seeing as it doesn't seem to be doing it's job anymore.

awec

Do you think if Fitz hadn't got a central contract that it would make any sort of difference to the SOB / Heaslip situations?

I don't.

Foxtrol

awec wrote: »

Do you think if Fitz hadn't got a central contract that it would make any sort of difference to the SOB / Heaslip situations?

I don't.

Even if it didn't make any difference, what is the point of giving central contracts to the likes of Fitz, Trimble, and to a lesser extent Ryan - guys who haven't shown themselves to be key players for Ireland? It doesn't make logical or economic sense to me.

They don't seem to be being used to keep the best players in the country they are instead spread around the provinces for the sake of it, examples being the last generation of Munster guys being kept on them for longer than they should (DOC, Leamy, ROG) and the token Ulster contracts (Wallace, Trimble, Fitz). If you're going to give central contracts around the provinces to be 'fair' then they might as well give the money directly to the provinces to do with as they deem fit. What is the point in central contracts staying as they are when they arent keeping the best players in ireland?

[Deleted User]

awec wrote: »

Do you think if Fitz hadn't got a central contract that it would make any sort of difference to the SOB / Heaslip situations?

I don't.

Ultimately no, because of how they are currently used.

If they were implemented as Elite player contracts, then the superstars of our game could be paid higher and the gulf between € offered in France and by the IRFU would be a little less obvious.

awec

I don't think the sole purpose should be to keep the best players in the country, but rather to try and maintain the squad as much as possible within reason. I'd hate to see a situation where there are 4 or 5 centrally contracted players earning multiples of the rest of the Ireland team. That's a slippery slope and all of a sudden all our players will be booking weekend trips over to France when their deal is up for renewal.

People will complain either way in the end. If the IRFU give in and pay top dollar to SOB then the same people will be complaining when the likes of Luke Fitzgerald are offered wage cuts the next time they are up for renewal and people will be going on about how the wage budget is being spent poorly. Or imagine Leinster were told that the IRFU have agreed to Heaslips demand but as a consequence the money given to Leinster by the IRFU is having to be cut by x amount and as a result x number of players will not be able to get their current deals renewed.

We have a limited amount of money, we can pay the players from different pots of money and play games with the numbers but ultimately it all comes from the same place and there is a finite amount of it. We will never compete with millionaire backed French clubs on the wage front.

awec

Deleted User wrote: »

Ultimately no, because of how they are currently used.

If they were implemented as Elite player contracts, then the superstars of our game could be paid higher and the gulf between € offered in France and by the IRFU would be a little less obvious.

If our wages go up then so will theirs, there's no point deluding ourselves into thinking we will ever be competitive on that front. If we are suddenly able to offer 600k a year then they'll suddenly be able to offer 700k a year.

Would you be happy to keep SOB for example if that means losing 2 or 3 players like Fitzgerald and McGrath at Leinster? The money would have to come from somewhere.

Foxtrol

awec wrote: »

I don't think the sole purpose should be to keep the best players in the country, but rather to try and maintain the squad as much as possible within reason. I'd hate to see a situation where there are 4 or 5 centrally contracted players earning multiples of the rest of the Ireland team. That's a slippery slope and all of a sudden all our players will be booking weekend trips over to France when their deal is up for renewal.

People will complain either way in the end. If the IRFU give in and pay top dollar to SOB then the same people will be complaining when the likes of Luke Fitzgerald are offered wage cuts the next time they are up for renewal and people will be going on about how the wage budget is being spent poorly. Or imagine Leinster were told that the IRFU have agreed to Heaslips demand but as a consequence the money given to Leinster by the IRFU is having to be cut by x amount and as a result x number of players will not be able to get their current deals renewed.

We have a limited amount of money, we can pay the players from different pots of money and play games with the numbers but ultimately it all comes from the same place and there is a finite amount of it. We will never compete with millionaire backed French clubs on the wage front.

The strawman that keeps being made is that posters want to compete directly with the big French clubs on wages, I haven't yet read a poster that says the IRFU should have matched the Sexton offer or the one on the table for Heaslip.

The issue is that at the same time as the IRFU are being extremely frugal with the top tier guys (not giving Sexton parity and asking Heaslip to take a paycut) they're wasting money on a number of their central contracts. Rightly or wrongly Trimble has played a handful of games during his long stint on a central contract and every game he doesnt play for Ireland he is still getting his higher salary while the IRFU are also paying game bonuses every time a winger plays that isnt central contracted. It's economic stupidity.

I'm still waiting on an explanation as to why this policy makes sense.

awec

Foxtrol wrote: »

The strawman that keeps being made is that posters want to compete directly with the big French clubs on wages, I haven't yet read a poster that says the IRFU should have matched the Sexton offer or the one on the table for Heaslip.

The issue is that at the same time as the IRFU are being extremely frugal with the top tier guys (not giving Sexton parity and asking Heaslip to take a paycut) they're wasting money on a number of their central contracts. Rightly or wrongly Trimble has played a handful of games during his long stint on a central contract and every game he doesnt play for Ireland he is still getting his higher salary while the IRFU are also paying game bonuses every time a winger plays that isnt central contracted. It's economic stupidity.

I'm still waiting on an explanation as to why this policy makes sense.

How are they wasting money on central deals? That argument does not stand up at all given that they are paying for it either way.

If Fitzpatrick signs an IRFU deal the money comes out of the IRFU bank account. If he signs an Ulster deal it comes out of the Ulster bank account, which ultimately comes out of the IRFU bank account.

The only way the IRFU save money on Declan Fitzpatrick to offer Sean O'Brien more is if Declan Fitzpatrick gets no contract at all.

Let me ask you - would you be happy to see the IRFU offer more to SOB if it meant that other players were offered cuts the next time their deals are up? For example, would you keep SOB at the possible expense of Luke Fitzgerald or McGrath?

Foxtrol

awec wrote: »

How are they wasting money on central deals? That argument does not stand up at all given that they are paying for it either way.

If Fitzpatrick signs an IRFU deal the money comes out of the IRFU bank account. If he signs an Ulster deal it comes out of the Ulster bank account, which ultimately comes out of the IRFU bank account.

The only way the IRFU save money on Declan Fitzpatrick to offer Sean O'Brien more is if Declan Fitzpatrick gets no contract at all.

Did you not read my post?

It's come from several sources that those central contracted are on a higher wage but don't get international game bonuses. For all the games over the years that Trimble (or any of the other guys on central contracts that weren't squad regulars) didn't make the side they were still getting their higher wage while also the IRFU had to pay the guy on the provincial contract a game bonus - the IRFU are taking a double hit by paying two guys a higher wage.

It's like a company paying a one of their staff a higher wage to keep them but then realising the guy cant actually do his job and they have to also hire a contractor as well to do it. It's a total waste of money that could be spent elsewhere and terrible management.

That's the issue with Fitz getting the contract, I wouldn't mind if he was a consistent first team starter for Ireland but given his terrible injury record and the emergence of other THs its not inconceivable that he might not be making the squad soon even when the stars align and he's fit.

awec

Foxtrol wrote: »

Did you not read my post?

It's come from several sources that those central contracted are on a higher wage but don't get international game bonuses. For all the games over the years that Trimble (or any of t he other guys on central contracts that weren't squad regulars) didn't make the side they were still getting their higher wage while also the IRFU had to pay the guy on the provincial contract a game bonus - the IRFU are taking a double hit by paying two guys a higher wage.

It's like a company paying a one of their staff a higher wage to keep them but then realising the guy cant actually do his job and they have to also hire a contractor as well to do the job. It's a total waste of money and terrible management.

That's the issue with Fitz getting the contract, I wouldn't mind if he was a consistent first team starter for Ireland but given his terrible injury record and the emergence of other THs its not inconceivable that he might not be making the squad soon even when the stars align and he's fit.

This "match bonus" thing is a total red herring IMO. Yes, players are played match bonuses if they don't have a central deal but these are not massive money. Switching a player from the bonuses onto a central deal is not going to make significant savings, giving a few players less bonuses is not going to produce the money needed to bring up the level of salary for elite players.

Ultimately that's what is wanted here, higher salaries for Elite players closer to French levels. We want to retain our top players, to do that we need to be matching, or getting very close to French salaries.

I mean I fully get how it's confusing at the moment and a bit erratic, but I don't believe that there is much that can be done when it comes to retaining top players when french teams come calling. At least not from a money point of view, no matter how much we switch up the system.

I would certainly agree that Fitz is very fortunate to get one, I personally wouldn't have given him one.

Foxtrol

awec wrote: »

This "match bonus" thing is a total red herring. Yes, players are played match bonuses if they don't have a central deal but these are not massive money. Switching a player from the bonuses onto a central deal is not going to make significant savings, giving a few players less bonuses is not going to produce the money needed to bring up the level of salary for elite players.

Do you have a source to that it's not massive money? It was said that one of the reasons SOB stayed on a provincial one last time were the international bonuses.

A waste is a waste whatever way you look at it and over the years there's been a number of guys on central contracts who haven't been first team regulars. I'd much rather the IRFU made saving through not wasting money on unnecessary guys on central contracts to guys not playing than giving derisory offers to the top guys.

You are also ignoring that even our highest paid players aren't on massive money either. If a player only gets €2,500 an international game (I'd say it's a good bit more) then over a season of say 12 games that's €30k which would be around 7% of the reported annual salary of the IRFUs current top earner. That's one guy on a central contract not playing so a couple of guys on central contracts not making the team it would certainly add up.