Central Contracts

[scrum5]

Taken from the IT

Stephen Ferris underwent his second ankle operation of the season yesterday, almost certainly ruling him out of this summer’s Lions tour of Australia.

It also means the 27-year-old’s management company, Corner Flag Ltd, can only begin negotiations with the IRFU over a new contract for the abrasive flanker when a full post-op medical report becomes available.

Ferris’ current deal runs out this summer. His initial operation on ankle tendons, damaged against Edinburgh on November 2nd, was expected to have him back in contention for the Six Nations.

Yesterday’s procedure was to clean up irritation along the ankle joint line, to improve range and motion when he does return to action. That, in all likelihood, will be next season although there remains a chance Ferris will return to action in May. There are no long-term repercussions expected from the latest bout of injury problems suffered by the Maghaberry native.

However, his career has been blighted by ankle, knee and back problems. Still, it is not believed Ferris will be dropping down from a national to provincial deal, despite the union actively trimming the number of centrally-contracted players from 30 plus to the teens

The new criteria for a central contract is that a player, when fit, must be a guaranteed starter for Ireland with the provinces having to bear the financial brunt as a result.

Ferris has won 35 caps since his debut against the Pacific Islanders at Lansdowne Road in November 2006, a day when Jamie Heaslip and Luke Fitzgerald also made their maiden voyages in a green jersey.

Heaslip has gone on to feature in 58 Test matches, Fitzgerald just 25. Fitzgerald’s representatives, Platinum One, are still in talks with Leinster about extending his current one-year deal.

The Paddy Wallace contractual situation is equally concerning. The 33-year-old has been on a national contract for the past five years with his most recent one-year deal up this summer. Wallace ruptured his anterior cruciate ligament against Glasgow on Friday night and is facing into at least six months of rehabilitation, leaving him in a similar position to Fitzgerald last year.

Ulster’s most capped player (188 games) is seeking a one-year extension from Ulster with his trump card, presuming he regains fitness, being the ability to cover Luke Marshall, who will presumably be away on international duty next season.

Much like Leo Cullen in Leinster, Wallace’s agent Ryan Constable, who also represents Ferris and Andrew Trimble, will presumably play the loyalty card in negotiations after 12 years of service at Ravenhill.

Trimble is another senior Ulster player coming off a national contract, seeking a two-year deal from Ulster, having dropped down the international pecking order in recent seasons.

Ironically, Trimble and Wallace retained their positions in the Ulster side this season, at inside centre and wing, despite the promotion of team-mates Marshall and Craig Gilroy to the Ireland squad in their place.

[OneMore]

I note with interest that the reduction in central contracts and passing of wages on to the provinces comes at a time when Ulster are in a position now where they would expect to be carrying more centrally contracted players than ever

COINCIDENCE?

[Hans Indaruck]

I note with interest that the reduction in central contracts and passing of wages on to the provinces comes at a time when Ulster are in a position now where they would expect to be carrying more centrally contracted players than ever

COINCIDENCE?

Maybe not a bad thing! Post match on Saturday Shane Horgan was pointing out (in relation to BOD's speculated retirement) that if you are on a Central Contract you cannot retire from international rugby and play for your province - a player must make himself available for international duty. He did not clarify how long this lasts - I would have thought until the end of the contract - begs the question how long Central Contracts are?

[scrum5]

I note with interest that the reduction in central contracts and passing of wages on to the provinces comes at a time when Ulster are in a position now where they would expect to be carrying more centrally contracted players than ever

COINCIDENCE?

So who would be worthy of a CC...

Certs should be....

Ulster...Rory Best, Stephen Ferris, Tommy Bowe

Leinster...Cian Healy, Rob Kearney, Sean O'Brien, Mike Ross(no-one else), Jamie Heaslip( because he has one, though he shouldn't)

Munster...Paul O'Connell, Donnacha Ryan, POM(same as Heaslip)

Deserving of one...

Ulster...Chris Henry, Luke Marshall, Darren Cave

Leinster...

Munster...Simon Zebo, Conor Murray (same as Ross)

I don't think the IRFU will give a CC to either Jackson/Madigan or Keatley as Johnny will still be the starting O/H, also had a difficult choice between Zebo/Gilroy and Trimble. Went with Zebo as Gilroy hasn't replaced Andy T at Ulster and Andy T hasn't for whatever reason produced his excellent club form at international level.

1) Cian Healy
2) Rory Best
3) Mike Ross
4) Paul O'Connell
5) Donnacha Ryan
6) Stephen Ferris
7) Chris Henry
Sean O'Brien
9) Conor Murray
10) Jonathan Sexton
11) Tommy Bowe
12) Luke Marshall
13) Darren Cave
14) Simon Zebo
15) Rob Kearney


Disclaimer...This is just my opinion

[Neil F]

The entire model of the central contract is, in my opinion, outdate; in typical IRFU fashion, their apparent attempt to change it is a massive retrograde step, however. Only the IRFU, after fifteen years of self-congratulatory backslapping, could finally realise there is a fundamentally flawed issue in the way players are contracted, and how that creates bottlenecks in the systems feeding into province and international level and come up with something as absurd as the one that was reported in the Independent today. It is so bizarre that I simply cannot believe that it is true.

There is a role for central contracts in Irish rugby but they will only work if they are restricted to players whom it is a strategic advantage to retain attacked to the union, due to the ability to restrict their playing time and manage their exposure to injury. Anything else creates bizarre incentives for provinces to retain ageing players and let them be flogged in the international series. Hell; if a 32 year-old is free, it doesn't matter if he only plays ten times a season; he's free, right? This blocks the natural progression of young guys into the provincial and, ergo, international teams.

At present, Cian Healy, Mike Ross, Paul O'Connell, Donnacha Ryan, Stephen Ferris, Conor Murray and Rob Kearney are the only players who fit this description for me and they all do so for very different reasons; disturbingly, none of these players are there based, only, on talent. Ferris and O'Connell are injury prone and need careful management if they are to fulfil their international duty; the others based on the fact that the gap between them and the next-best option is so vast that it could have a serious impact on the outcome of any international game.

The IRFU model that it is desirable to keep every Irish player in Ireland is false; Bowe thriving in Wales showed that - long-term, it only had the impact of forcing Ulster to give Gilroy a starring role at a very young age. Look at where that has led. The central contracting system has, at times, prevented such "natural" movements of players. What is scary is that the IRFU have done just about the only thing they could to make the situation worse!

[Rooster]

Load of horlix, same wages all round to provinces then pay players a decent wedge per session in Ireland camps and per match plus win bonus, neutral outside coach with no previous loyalties and pick best player in each position for each batch of matches, poor form you get dropped, good form you get picked, everyone wins as players strive to be the best in their position in their provinces, team Ireland also as they play to stay in squad.

[Russ]

Right, someone send Rooster's and Neil's posts to the IRFU

Simple - though I would have Best on a cc and not Ryan

[Rooster]

Right, someone send Rooster's and Neil's posts to the IRFU

Simple - though I would have Best on a cc and not Ryan

Missed a bit in mine in that Province also needs an extra wedge each time a player is picked.
Keeps same overall pot of cash for wages but gives the extra to those who perform, a contract where you will basically be picked unless wrecked gives no real incentive to play to your best ability and also leaves others thinking why should I bother staying if I probably will never get an Ireland cap anyway.

[Neil F]

Rooster; whilst I can see the logic, I think your proposal has some serious flaws. Not least that it provides, basically, the same incentives for players to play provincial rugby or to go to England / France; those players will still get paid for their international call ups. I'd suggest the baseline pay in France would be significantly higher and the international top up / appearance fee smaller, reducing the incentive to stay in Ireland. If a huge proportion of a player's wage is contingent on being available to play for Ireland, there is little insurance against injury, for example. I wonder if Ferris would view the incentive of staying in Ireland the same way if, this season, his injuries meant that he earned less money than Paul Marshall...

The way out, perhaps, would be to have a staggered baseline - Ferris gets the same for showing up to an international training session as Marshall but earns a lot more, whether he turns out for Ireland or not. This would be shockingly difficult to administer, however, as the IRFU would need to make that call for every player in Ireland. It would take the payment of wages entirely out of the provinces hands and I think that would be fundamentally wrong - four provinces competing for access to scarce resources.It reduces to a more complex version of central contracting.

[Rooster]

Rooster; whilst I can see the logic, I think your proposal has some serious flaws. Not least that it provides, basically, the same incentives for players to play provincial rugby or to go to England / France; those players will still get paid for their international call ups.

Simple way round that is nothing extra as they are rarely released for camps other that the statutory weeks off.

It's not perfect I know but it is a damned sight better than giving a 3 year central contract to a player who is then picked regardless of his form or for that matter of dubious value even to start with.

I'd suggest the baseline pay in France would be significantly higher and the international top up / appearance fee smaller, reducing the incentive to stay in Ireland.

Possibly would then again the present system does not encourage young players to stay anyway as they are basically excluded from the system anyway, without a batch of injuries this years 6 Nations would have been more of the same old squad, Ireland have the crazy situation that holds players past their best and keeps young lads from getting a real chance, we try to win competitions during the time others build for other competitions and are stuck in the middle where other sides have good and bad cycles and I think I would rather see a good couple of years followed by a rebuild than the same stale set up year after year.

[Neil F]

The problem then is if players start playing hardball - "Pay us a show-up and appearance fee or we're not showing up and appearing." That is a situation I could easily imagine if enough players took the plunge and moved to England or France. And I could see more doing so under a nominal provincial fee with added extras. The central contracts provide significant security for the players against injury and so forth; appearance fees do not and no one would blame a large group of players for going where they can expect to earn the most.

I agree that it's much better than trying to predict two thirds or more of the team for the next three years. But as I said, only in Ireland do we have an expectation that the running of the union is so bizarre that a suggestion clearly so mental would even gain traction as rumour, let alone probably be true!

Absolutely no disagreement with your second point - except that, in some situations, it might not be so bad for some young guys to go off to France or England for a couple of years. Fergus McFadden, certainly, would have benefitted from doing so. Madigan, possibly also. Dave Kearney would be another good shout. Donnacha Ryan at Munster is another, whilst I can think of several young backs at Ulster who this will, or could, apply to in the next season or two.

[TMHG]

Central Contracts are an incentive to the provinces to produce top players as basically they get the use of Brian O'Driscoll, Stephen Ferris etc. for important games for free.

When they are away, they need to be prepared to maintain a larger squad for the times they are away. Tommy Bowe's situation worked very well, but I'm not sure all players would be able to negotiate the time off that he did. He also consciously decided to remain playing in the Rabo to keep himself in contention for an Ireland place.

[rumncoke]

The problem is a bit like trying to square the circle , but if the callup money is good and the appearance money better and there is a nominal annual bonus provided for the those deemed as centrally contracted then the blockage created by" he's centrally contracted he must play could be avoided ", especially if say the annual bonus is paid over three years weighted towards the end of three years on say a 5K 10K 15K basis .

I think the French clubs will find that they may well be restricted as to the number of foreign players on the books due to the poor preformance of the International team.

Conspiracy theory would be the poor performance has the blessing of the Union to enable it to introduce the policy and reign back the super rich clubs and increase the money available for French talent.

I also agree to some extent with Neil F that playing in England and France could add to the experience of some players and may not be as negative as the IRFU believe -- provided that players are available for training camps before AIs and 6Ns.

The idea that you can protect players from injury by resting them must be considered a falacy when one looks at the list of Ulster and Irish players injured .

Nor will resting players prolong the number of years they can play -- the body has a natural ageing process both physically and mentally and while players may be fitter now at 30 than 10 years ago the fact is the player is physically and mentally 30 years old.

[Harold7]

I think the French clubs will fined that they may well be restricted as to the number of foreign players on the books due to the poor preformance of the International team.

Bernard Jackman was saying on Against The Head that the Top 14 is actually more powerful than the French Union now. Seemingly the Union brought in a rule limiting clubs to 14 NFQ (yes 14!) but the clubs vetoed it and instead clubs will be limited to 17 NFQ players. 12 of the Top 14 apparently have foreign out halfs, meanwhile France are left to choose between Trinh Duc who is a good player and Michalak who plays 9 for Toulon. Those numbers are incredible and I ahve to wonder whether they are correct, but then he coaches over there (in Grenoble I think) so I guess he should know.

It's maybe no wonder France have 1 point from 4 games. It's only going to get worse.

[BaggyTrousers]

Much of the blether about central contracts leaves me cold, like much in life there are pros and cons to any conceivable way of constructing and awarding such contracts but by and large I'm convinced that what was put in place has served Ireland pretty well. That's not to say it's not without drawbacks.

Take our Paddy Wallace for example, a great Ulster favourite of course but has he really been good value for a central contract for the last 5 years? I suspect all but the most blinkered would have to say the contract has been better for Paddy than for Ireland.

I am more interested in the French situation at present as it is the biggest danger to Irish Rugby as the continue to recruit players with a voracious appetite.

They have a remarkable attitude to NFQs, 17 per club is staggering and there is no doubt that must impact on the national team. With such a well resourced product and apparent limitless recruitment no obstacle for many clubs in wages terms, I have to ask why they are producing such a dull level of rugby at the big clubs with perhaps one or two exceptions?

It is also clear that they are not recruiting the best players from ND or OZ with guys going only for a brief period like Carter or for a pension. I suspect the nature of the Rugby dictates that.

As a first step to prevent adding Ulster players to a FFL I hope that part of McGlocks brief is to discourage the teaching of French in our schools.