That world changes again when you factor in the lure of the overseas clubs. International image rights, offshore accounts in tax haven jurisdictions such as Jersey, non-dom tax status; these are not terms familiar to the average punter but rest assured your favourite player's agent knows all about them.

Welcome to the world that the ARU lives in when trying to fend off raiders for its players.

Of course, huge salaries are the main carrots used by overseas clubs. But they have ways of drizzling some honey on top too.

In the past few weeks I have spoken to London tax experts, the professionals who advise non-UK sports people how to arrange their affairs, and there are ways, for the right sort of player, to accumulate a nice little (or large) retirement package by signing up to the queue of clubs throwing money at Australian players.

It is technical, with some grey areas, but it goes like this.

A high-profile Wallaby can claim something called non-domiciled status in the UK for tax purposes.

What that means is that he may not be taxed at the same rate as the British bloke sitting beside him in the dressing room. Why? Because he wasn't born in the UK and may legally set up a company in a place such as Jersey or Gibraltar that receives part of his salary - perhaps 15 per cent or even higher - for international image rights.

Essentially, if the player carries out duties that are deemed to be 'promoting' the club overseas, his club pays part of his salary for 'using' his image rights. That money would otherwise attract a top bracket tax charge of 45 per cent.

So say he's paid $1m a year for three years, with 15 per cent hived off for image rights. In total, that's $450k tucked away in a haven without the British tax man getting his claws into it.

There's a catch here. Inland Revenue have cracked down on the caper, since about 2010 or even earlier. They need proof that the player is actually carrying out these promotional activities - a diary of events attended, for example - because too many clubs were structuring all overseas deals in the same way regardless of what duties the players were carrying out.

These deals, apparently, are not as prevalent as they were in the UK. Moreover, similar arrangements are understood to be in place for Australian players remaining in Australia.

Still, the right player with the sufficiently high profile can satisfy the UK authorities' demands, and then it becomes lucrative. Little or no tax in the way in to their offshore account, and the same on the way out. They only have to figure out how to repatriate it effectively to Australia once their overseas stint is done.

And there's another attraction. Let's say a Wallaby has an asset in Australia, be it shares or property. If he collects dividends, rent or even sells the asset, when he is over in the UK he can claim that as 'earnings abroad' and put it offshore as well. It will sit and grow nicely for the duration of his deal for him to collect on the way out of the UK.

Remember, this is all legitimate. (There are certainly whispers about even more 'creative' ways of paying players, but I'd need an army of lawyers before repeating them.)

Why is this all important? Because when the Wallabies go off on their grand slam tour, Michael Cheika will be preoccupied with how to beat the European sides and Bill Pulver will be preoccupied with another battle - how to fend off the European clubs.

They have already lost Kurtley Beale and Matt Toomua to Wasps and Leicester, and I can absolutely guarantee you that big men such as Rory Arnold, Adam Coleman and Lopeti Timani will be in the sights of other sides.

The issue of clubs with too much money has the potential to unpick the seams of the international game, and Pulver would be well within his rights to knock on the door of World Rugby in Dublin and ask: what are you going to do about it?