Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

The $4,000,000 man - Why Rieko Ioane will earn more than Kieran Read

How much will it take to keep Rieko Ioane in New Zealand?

ADVERTISEMENT

The 21-year-old is off contract with the NZRU at the end of the year. His world tour last year showcased his talents to all the clubs in the Northern Hemisphere, driving up his market value with every performance.

At such a young age, the NZRU would like to secure their primary strike weapon for the long-term. A four-year extension would retain Ioane until 2022, whilst an unprecedented five-year deal would include the next Rugby World Cup in 2023.

Negotiations have been ongoing since the start of the year but the pen has not been put to paper. In the past, only proven performers over a longer time frame earn top dollar contracts with the NZRU. With the increased competition from overseas markets, the NZRU is being forced to reward earlier or risk losing – see Charles Piutau.

In exchange for top money, they want longer commitment. NZRU’s head of professional rugby Chris Lendrum told the NZ Herald recently that “if we can agree on healthy long-term deals they will be rewarded well by anyone’s estimations”. Although these long-term deals can be a case of buyer beware.

After the 2015 Rugby World Cup at the height of Julian Savea’s market, the NZRU handed out an estimated $3.2 million to lock him in until 2019 at somewhere around $800k a year. Savea had just turned 25-years-old before that Rugby World Cup, whereas Ioane has just turned 21. The All Blacks historically replace wingers at around 26, so when you look the lifespan of a winger, Savea’s deal seems loaded with far more risk. They couldn’t let him walk after a sublime World Cup showing, but were unable to agree a shorter term to hedge against a potential slump at the backend. That deal now hasn’t panned out for NZRU and shows the risk in playing long.

Video Spacer

Should the NZRU retain Rieko Ioane, they will secure his prime years as an athlete. They will be forced to pay a king’s ransom given his play at the international level already. Ironically, this contract would be a lot cheaper for the NZRU if Savea had blocked Ioane’s path into the All Blacks for another year.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Guys like Rieko and Damian [McKenzie] are exactly the sort of players that will challenge our thinking, and the heat in the international market which is greater than I’ve ever seen it also challenges that,” Lendrum said.

“We have to continue to be flexible and think about how we reward those players at a younger age.

They will likely have to pay over a million dollars a season to keep Rieko Ioane, and over four years this deal should be in excess of NZD$4 million. Even with a three-year deal, it could come close to that. And that’s with a discount. With pounds and euros on offer in the North, is it not conceivable that Ioane would command a similar price tag to Charles Piutau at £1 million per season (NZD $1.9 million)?

The All Blacks captain Kieran Read is thought to be the first player to reach the $1 million per season threshold when he signed a two-year extension last year, Ioane should leapfrog that. The market resets fast, and Ioane is going to benefit hugely from his timing.

In other news:

Video Spacer
ADVERTISEMENT

 

 

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

0 Comments
Be the first to comment...

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
JW 5 hours ago
‘The problem with this year’s Champions Cup? Too many English clubs’

Yep, that's exactly what I want.

Glasgow won the URC and Edinburgh finished 16th, but Scotland won the six nations, Edinburgh would qualify for the Champions Cup under your system.

It's 'or'. If Glasgow won the URC or Scotland won the six nations. If one of those happens I believe it will (or should) be because the league is in a strong place, and that if a Scotland side can do that, there next best club team should be allowed to reach for the same and that would better serve the advancement of the game.


Now, of course picking a two team league like Scotland is the extreme case of your argument, but I'm happy for you to make it. First, Edinbourgh are a good mid table team, so they are deserving, as my concept would have predicted, of the opportunity to show can step up. Second, you can't be making a serious case that Gloucester are better based on beating them, surely. You need to read Nicks latest article on SA for a current perspective on road teams in the EPCR. Christ, you can even follow Gloucester and look at the team they put out the following week to know that those games are meaningless.


More importantly, third. Glasgow are in a league/pool with Italy, So the next team to be given a spot in my technically imperfect concept would be Benneton. To be fair to my idea that's still in it's infancy, I haven't given any thought to those 'two team' leagues/countries yet, and I'm not about to 😋

They would be arguably worse if they didn't win the Challenge Cup.

Incorrect. You aren't obviously familiar with knockout football Finn, it's a 'one off' game. But in any case, that's not your argument. You're trying to suggest they're not better than the fourth ranked team in the Challenge Cup that hasn't already qualified in their own league, so that could be including quarter finalists. I have already given you an example of a team that is the first to get knocked out by the champions not getting a fair ranking to a team that loses to one of the worst of the semi final teams (for example).

Sharks are better

There is just so much wrong with your view here. First, the team that you are knocking out for this, are the Stormers, who weren't even in the Challenge Cup. They were the 7th ranked team in the Champions Cup. I've also already said there is good precedent to allow someone outside the league table who was heavily impacted early in the season by injury to get through by winning Challenge Cup. You've also lost the argument that Sharks qualify as the third (their two best are in my league qualification system) South African team (because a SAn team won the CC, it just happened to be them) in my system. I'm doubt that's the last of reasons to be found either.


Your system doesn't account for performance or changes in their domestic leagues models, and rely's heavily on an imperfect and less effective 'winner takes all' model.

Giving more incentives to do well in the Challenge Cup will make people take it more seriously. My system does that and yours doesn't.

No your systems doesn't. Not all the time/circumstances. You literally just quoted me describing how they aren't going to care about Challenge Cup if they are already qualifying through league performance. They are also not going to hinder their chance at high seed in the league and knockout matches, for the pointless prestige of the Challenge Cup.


My idea fixes this by the suggesting that say a South African or Irish side would actually still have some desire to win one of their own sides a qualification spot if they win the Challenge Cup though. I'll admit, its not the strongest incentive, but it is better than your nothing. I repeat though, if your not balance entries, or just my assignment, then obviously winning the Challenge Cup should get you through, but your idea of 4th place getting in a 20 team EPCR? Cant you see the difference lol


Not even going to bother finishing that last paragraph. 8 of 10 is not an equal share.

126 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING Warren Gatland finds out his fate as Wales undergo huge changes Warren Gatland finds out his fate as Wales undergo huge changes
Search