ARU rules out swoop on Storm

[travelling_gerry]

ARU rules out swoop on Storm

JOSH RAKIC

May 2, 2010
WALLABIES high-performance manager David Nucifora has put paid to speculation the Australian Rugby Union is breaking the bank to secure NRL star Israel Folau and said the Wallabies were not chasing Billy Slater or any other Storm player.
Nucifora laughed off suggestions the ARU had tabled top-ups to the value of $700,000 a year for Folau and Slater, labelling the talk as ''unfounded speculation''. ''There is no player, I can guarantee, who is on that kind of money from the ARU,'' he said.
''We're not actively pursuing any rugby league players, including Billy Slater or any of the other Melbourne Storm players - or any other league players. It's not on our agenda to be doing that and again it's really just unfounded speculation that's been fuelled by what has gone on down in Melbourne with the Storm. It's certainly not our plan to offer ARU top-ups to any Melbourne Storm players.''
He said the ARU did not instigate the pursuit of Folau, revealing that the governing body had offered only a modest top-up as a favour to the Melbourne Rebels and it only weighed in after the new franchise declared its interest.
''We didn't go out and actively pursue Israel,'' Nucifora told The Sun-Herald. ''He wasn't on our list of things to do. We acknowledge he's a good league player and a good athlete but this is mainly about trying to help Melbourne get set up.
''We've done a deal with Melbourne we're happy with - we understand their reasons as to why they want Israel Folau to play for them: his [prominence] down there. That makes sense. He'd be a good figurehead to get rugby up and running … given his association with the Melbourne Storm and it all makes sense. So it'll be good for them if they do manage to get him.
''And if it pays dividends nationally down the track, well that's great, too. But we'll have to wait and see; he's the one that has to make the decision.''
Folau's ARU top-up is understood to be just $100,000, while proven convert Mark Gasnier's top-up is believed be about $200,000 - validation the ARU is serious about not luring rugby league players with massive contracts, as stated six weeks ago.
''If it's about money, then players are probably coming to the wrong place,'' Nucifora said.
Gasnier met with his French club Stade Francais yesterday and has until May 15 to decide whether to sign a lucrative deal with the club or return to Australia and play Super rugby.
The 28-year-old is on holiday and his manager, George Mimis, said no decision would be made until at least the end of next week. He said speculation Gasnier had already committed to the Rebels was ''absolute rubbish''.
Nucifora said: ''If Mark decides he wants to come back to Australia, play rugby and try his hand at Super rugby and see if he's good enough to be a Wallaby, then he'll come here and it won't be an issue of money … But with any of these things, usually the longer it goes on the less likely it is of happening.''


http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/un...0501-u04u.html

[AndyS]

Now that we have a system that allows marquee players, I don't see why the ARU should be getting involved at all. It provides a mechanism by which the clubs are not constrained by salary limits for certain players, and League converts should fall into that category. If it subsequently turns out that they are good enough within a couple of years for the Wallabies, then fine and the ARU can change their contractual status. But most of them are just there for the box office, which is the very definition of "marquee".

[Burgs]

"He said the ARU did not instigate the pursuit of Folau, revealing that the governing body had offered only a modest top-up as a favour to the Melbourne Rebels and it only weighed in after the new franchise declared its interest."

Didn't realise the ARU where in the business of "doing favours"...

[TOCC]

whats the issue now burgs?

[Burgs]

Doing a favour would imply doing something perhaps against their better judgement but out of the goodness of their heart, not a trait I have noticed out of HQ too often.

[normie]

whats the issue now burgs?

Showing favouritism is an issue, TOCC. Perhaps it was meant to be a 'concession'?

[shasta]

Showing favouritism is an issue, TOCC. Perhaps it was meant to be a 'concession'?

Would have thought they had generous concessions already, without extra "leg-ups" to help recruit NRL players. Thought that was only for the Tahs benefit.

[TOCC]

i dont see it been a favour at all, $100'000 is a drop in the pond when you take into consideration the added PR exposure that Israel Folau has in Melbourne..

He is by no means a superstar in the AFL dominated market, but he is at least a better known personality then any of the rugby union players. What Israel can generate in headlines and extra interest(in melbourne) is worth more then the $100'000 top-up IMO.

[beige]

He'd be "coming home" (even though he'd technically be "leaving home" again but they won't spin it that way)...

[Burgs]

i dont see it been a favour at all.

Well, apparenly the ARU do.

"He said the ARU did not instigate the pursuit of Folau, revealing that the governing body had offered only a modest top-up as a favour to the Melbourne Rebels and it only weighed in after the new franchise declared its interest."

[beige]

Yay we're arguing semantics again

[shasta]

Yay we're arguing semantics again

No we're not. If the ARU are saying they are doing it as a leg-up for Melbourne becasue of his prifile and not because they see him making the Wallaby squad, then that fits the profile of a marquee player. It shoudn't attract Wallaby contract dollars. Just another example of why that pool of money should be split evenly among the franchises.

[Burgs]

Yay we're arguing semantics again

Don't go bringing the Jews into it

Sorry, bad joke...

[TOCC]

Well, apparenly the ARU do.

"He said the ARU did not instigate the pursuit of Folau, revealing that the governing body had offered only a modest top-up as a favour to the Melbourne Rebels and it only weighed in after the new franchise declared its interest."

thats very cute, but you need to realise that what you have 'quoted' there is not actually a quote from Nucifora rather the journalists spin on what Nucifora said.. You adding in the 'quotation' marks does not actually make it a quote from Nucifora.

[Burgs]

Thanks for the lesson.
I actually already "realise" that so don't "need" to do anything, but thanks for the advice.
My quotation marks where quoting the article to distinguish from the rest of the post.
If you read my initial post impartially rather than looking for an argument as usual you would see quite clearly that I haven’t attributed the quote to him but was commenting on the mindset of the ARU.
Feel free to PM me if you want to let me know why it is you actually have the shits with me in recent times and seem to bite at anything I say and turn throw away lines into great scandals.
It is getting a little tiresome.