Theres £1,852,890 down the toilet then

http://www.espnscrum.com/six-nations-2012/rugby/story/158500.html

Glad to see that Lancasters New England are longer to be motivated by money and purely the passion of being a just like Gary Neville and some Welsh bloke from the cricket. I guess Armitage will be annoyed hes missing out on this wouldve been handy to pay his legal fees.

Negative mood regarding England at the moment. In reality of course this sort of thing is perfectly normal and I believe ( cba to do the maths ) a below infaltion rise in what they were offered last year. In the grand scheme of sproting payouts its far from huge.
But it does give another opportunity to tbash England which we all love doing right?

Doing it for money is the wrong attitude from the get go. If winning the Grand Slam requires money to motivate players to aspire to achieve it, I think that's the wrong message.

I'm sure lots of players on the fringes of the England squad and thousands of English rugby players across the country would play for England for no money at all.

IMO playing for your country should be the greatest honour a player can have and it should need no financial motivation.

I always remember the story about Ronnie O'Sullivan on the cusp of a 147 break in a snooker tournament a couple of years ago asking the referee if there was a prize for getting it. Upon hearing there was no prize O'Sullivan deliberatly missed the final pot. A disgrace IMO.

In sport you should always do things for yourself and country rather than money.

Just my opinion though.

I could think of thousands of players on the fringes of the England squad who would play for England for no money at all.

Thousands? And you can think of them all?

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Doing it for money is the wrong attitude from the get go. If winning the Grand Slam requires money to motivate players to aspire to achieve it, I think that's the wrong message.

I could think of thousands of players on the fringes of the England squad who would play for England for no money at all.

IMO playing for your country should be the greatest honour a player can have and it should need no financial motivation.

I always remember the story about Ronnie O'Sullivan on the cusp of a 147 break in a snooker tournament a couple of years ago asking the referee if there was a prize for getting it. Upon hearing there was no prize O'Sullivan deliberatly missed the final pot. A disgrace IMO.

In sport you should always do things for yourself and country rather than money.

Just my opinion though.

hold on a minute. No player in the EPS has said or acting like they are doing it for the money. What makes you think they wouldn't do it for no money?

This is just a story on how much they'll get paid. Nothing more...

Also the RFU need to find the person who is leaking all this stuff to the telegraph.

nathan wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Doing it for money is the wrong attitude from the get go. If winning the Grand Slam requires money to motivate players to aspire to achieve it, I think that's the wrong message.

I could think of thousands of players on the fringes of the England squad who would play for England for no money at all.

IMO playing for your country should be the greatest honour a player can have and it should need no financial motivation.

I always remember the story about Ronnie O'Sullivan on the cusp of a 147 break in a snooker tournament a couple of years ago asking the referee if there was a prize for getting it. Upon hearing there was no prize O'Sullivan deliberatly missed the final pot. A disgrace IMO.

In sport you should always do things for yourself and country rather than money.

Just my opinion though.

hold on a minute. No player in the EPS has said or acting like they are doing it for the money. What makes you think they wouldn't do it for no money?

This is just a story on how much they'll get paid. Nothing more...

Also the RFU need to find the person who is leaking all this stuff to the telegraph.

You misunderstand me, I'm not suggesting players are doing it for money. However it cannot be argued against money is a factor when such a huge sum is being mentioned should England be successful in winning the grand slam.

Clearly the powers in the RFU feel the glory, history and bragging rights in winning a grand slam are not motivational enough for the players hence this sum of money is being mentioned.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

nathan wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:Doing it for money is the wrong attitude from the get go. If winning the Grand Slam requires money to motivate players to aspire to achieve it, I think that's the wrong message.

I could think of thousands of players on the fringes of the England squad who would play for England for no money at all.

IMO playing for your country should be the greatest honour a player can have and it should need no financial motivation.

I always remember the story about Ronnie O'Sullivan on the cusp of a 147 break in a snooker tournament a couple of years ago asking the referee if there was a prize for getting it. Upon hearing there was no prize O'Sullivan deliberatly missed the final pot. A disgrace IMO.

In sport you should always do things for yourself and country rather than money.

Just my opinion though.

hold on a minute. No player in the EPS has said or acting like they are doing it for the money. What makes you think they wouldn't do it for no money?

This is just a story on how much they'll get paid. Nothing more...

Also the RFU need to find the person who is leaking all this stuff to the telegraph.

You misunderstand me, I'm not suggesting players are doing it for money. However it cannot be argued against money is a factor when such a huge sum is being mentioned should England be successful in winning the grand slam.

Clearly the powers in the RFU feel the glory, history and bragging rights in winning a grand slam are not motivational enough for the players hence this sum of money is being mentioned.

Money is always a factor, it's their day job. Anyone who disagree's with that are telling fibs. Your making out that they have had a massive increase into the amount they get paid, which isn't the case.

Club is the day job - International is the honour bestowed on those who allegedly deserve the honour. International isn't the day job, it's the vehicle you use to sustain a day job or indeed get a better one.

International gives you negotiating leverage for the day jobs. So playing for nothing mightn't be a bad thing at International level - no player chooses to be one, they're not operating on a contract basis; they're picked; and it's a small elite group who make it.

Of course they'll get paid because whatever about International being the day job, they are still professionals. But for the best of them, money won't be the motivation they'll bring with them onto the field. Pride, honour and a basic desire to win will be.

SecretFly wrote:Club is the day job - International is the honour bestowed on those who allegedly deserve the honour. International isn't the day job, it's the vehicle you use to sustain a day job or indeed get a better one.

International gives you negotiating leverage for the day jobs. So playing for nothing mightn't be a bad thing at International level - no player chooses to be one, they're not operating on a contract basis; they're picked; and it's a small elite group who make it.

Of course they'll get paid because whatever about International being the day job, they are still professionals. But for the best of them, money won't be the motivation they'll bring with them onto the field. Pride, honour and a basic desire to win will be.

+1

Playing for your country is the single biggest honour a player can have. If it's money that motivates you to play well for your country, you should be ashamed of yourself.

If I were a pro and were good enough and I was called up to play for Scotland I would probably refuse my payment. The honour of representing my country and knowing that I am the best in my country for that position would be more than enough payment for me.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:
+1

Playing for your country is the single biggest honour a player can have.

Which is presumably why Stuart Lancaster played for Scotland.

Is it just me or does Lancaster look like Chris Barrie? - Brittas Empire

a fitter version, yes.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:If I were a pro and were good enough and I was called up to play for Scotland I would probably refuse my payment. The honour of representing my country and knowing that I am the best in my country for that position would be more than enough payment for me.

Then, frankly, you would be stupid. I am sure the blazered fools who run the SRU would be happy to keep the money for their own bloated expenses instead.


A few years ago it was decided that the England players should switch from a match fee to a payment that was split between a a set appearance fee and a performance related bit. they only get this bonus if they perform well enough to win a GS (which would be a massive achievement). Unlike some bonuses paid out nowadays the success criteria is pretty easy to understand.

Reward for winning - yes. As they'll have bills to pay and pensions to worry about that won't be eased by photographs of them winning a GS...So yes, payment for performance. But inducement to perform? Some players will be induced by the money and some will be induced by their competitive spirit.

I think RuggerRadge's point is that the ones induced by the money (and wasn't that one of the niggles that came out of England's WC debate? - players chatting about money rather than performance) should be weeded out - of any International side, not just England.
Of course that's 'perfect-world' thinking as you never can prove what a player is thinking - but sometimes you can detect it in his perfromance.

Good lord! England are paying their players are they? Whatever next? I bet no other national Rugby team are being paid even one cent!

Easter made a joke well after the game that they'd lost some money. Black humour. I doubt very much it was actually the motivation.

Generally the disagreements between players and the union about pay are down to the RFU squeezing as much money out of them as possible and not giving it the ones putting their health on the line. If the RFU officials were all voluntary posts then doubt it would ever come up.

So that works out at just under £62,000 each...if they do well, which they probably wont given how little they have all played together...so thats over say 6 weeks of rugby? so incomparison...

6 weeks wages
Tiger woods £7.6 million
David Beckham £3 million
Lionel Messi £2.4 million
Kimi Raikonnen £3.2 million
Sabastian chabal: £143, 000

I love the fact we are having this conversation as it shows how grounded rugby folk still are....however whilst £62000 is a load of money for us mere mortals it aint that much in the world of professional sport.

Get Sir Mr Fred Goodwin in charge of finance he would give away loads of money.

sirtidychris wrote:So that works out at just under £62,000 each...if they do well, which they probably wont given how little they have all played together...so thats over say 6 weeks of rugby? so incomparison...

6 weeks wages
Tiger woods £7.6 million
David Beckham £3 million
Lionel Messi £2.4 million
Kimi Raikonnen £3.2 million
Sabastian chabal: £143, 000

I love the fact we are having this conversation as it shows how grounded rugby folk still are....however whilst £62000 is a load of money for us mere mortals it aint that much in the world of professional sport.

Every product has a market price. Rugby players have the misfortune of playing a sport that doesn't command the same world attention, the same amounts in attention-seeking sponsorship or the same amounts in TV revenue. Woods is worth his 7 million because he's taking his slice from the total. Rugby players take their equivalent slice. I don't think there are losers, just unlucky rugby players who couldn't hit a barn door with a club