Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
NZ NZ

The multi-millionaire who's been topping up Pocock's salary

By Chris Jones
David Pocock in Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan.

Multi-millionaire David Paradice has been topping up David Pocock’s current three year playing contract to ensure he remains in Australia as a key member of the Wallaby team.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Australian Rugby Union have been battling financial problems making their star players attractive to foreign clubs but the Sunday Morning Herald has revealed that Paradice, whose investment firm handles around $16 billion, has been putting his own money into Pocock’s salary to keep him in the country. The news will only reinforce the view that the ARU cannot compete with overseas clubs in Europe and Japan without outside help.

Paradice, who is worth more than $500m, was initially impressed by the flanker’s pro-environment stance against mining. Pocock was warned by the Australian Rugby Union after a 2014 incident when he chained himself to an excavator at a northern New South Wales mine.Pocock has also highlighted the plight of endangered animals in Africa.

Paradice said: “Whatever you do, do the right thing’, that’s the way he operates and that’s what put him on my radar. He’s big on the environmental side of things like I am and he’s basically into doing the right thing, which I am too. To be at the top of your game you have to be highly talented and focused but you do see that a lot of top guys go AWOL and do stupid things.

David Pocock

“I have a huge regard for him, which is why I support him.”

Another Wallaby star Israel Folau was backed by the Salteri family, from a major engineering firm, until the middle of last year. The SMH said these previously anonymous backers make tax deductible donations to the Australian Rugby Foundation. Tony and Josephine Sukkar from a big construction company also donate to the foundation.

Paradice has also backed controversial league star Jarryd Hayne and Tour de France winner Cadel Evans.

ADVERTISEMENT
Video Spacer
ADVERTISEMENT

Join free

Aotearoa Rugby Podcast | Episode 11

Chasing The Sun | Series 1 Episode 1

Abbie Ward: A Bump in the Road

Pacific Four Series 2024 | Canada vs USA

Japan Rugby League One | Verblitz v Eagles | Full Match Replay

Fresh Starts | Episode 2 | Sam Whitelock

Royal Navy Men v Royal Air Force Men | Full Match Replay

Royal Navy Women v Royal Air Force Women | Full Match Replay

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
Jon 9 hours ago
The case for keeping the Melbourne Rebels in Super Rugby Pacific

I have heard it asked if RA is essentially one of the part owners and I suppose therefor should be on the other side of these two parties. If they purchased the rebels and guaranteed them, and are responsible enough they incur Rebels penalties, where is this line drawn? Seems rough to have to pay a penalty for something were your involvement sees you on the side of the conned party, the creditors. If the Rebels directors themselves have given the club their money, 6mil worth right, why aren’t they also listed as sitting with RA and the Tax office? And the legal threat was either way, new Rebels or defunct, I can’t see how RA assume the threat was less likely enough to warrant comment about it in this article. Surely RA ignore that and only worry about whether they can defend it or not, which they have reported as being comfortable with. So in effect wouldn’t it be more accurate to say there is no further legal threat (or worry) in denying the deal. Unless the directors have reneged on that. > Returns of a Japanese team or even Argentinean side, the Jaguares, were said to be on the cards, as were the ideas of standing up brand new teams in Hawaii or even Los Angeles – crazy ideas that seemingly forgot the time zone issues often cited as a turn-off for viewers when the competition contained teams from South Africa. Those timezones are great for SR and are what will probably be needed to unlock its future (cant see it remaining without _atleast _help from Aus), day games here are night games on the West Coast of america, were potential viewers triple, win win. With one of the best and easiest ways to unlock that being to play games or a host a team there. Less good the further across Aus you get though. Jaguares wouldn’t be the same Jaguares, but I still would think it’s better having them than keeping the Rebels. The other options aren’t really realistic 25’ options, no. From reading this authors last article I think if the new board can get the investment they seem to be confident in, you keeping them simply for the amount of money they’ll be investing in the game. Then ditch them later if they’re not good enough without such a high budget. Use them to get Jaguares reintergration stronger, with more key players on board, and have success drive success.

24 Go to comments
FEATURE
FEATURE The case for keeping the Melbourne Rebels in Super Rugby Pacific The case for keeping the Melbourne Rebels in Super Rugby Pacific
Search