Australian Rugby / RA

[Dan54]

Stop pointing out what is actually true WOB!!! And it nicely forgets that they always would have to be in Australia.

 

[Dan54]

I wouldn't be so sure. With their balls firmly in the tight silverlake grip for the foreseeable future and us about to host a BIL series and 2 world cup - our path looks better - even without a RSA tour

I agree , why does RA even bother with wanting extra tests, they are going to be flush after Lions and WC anyway aren't they?

 

[Cole]

I would've thought that its because its not only a potential extra source of revenue for the code but more importantly a great opportunity to promote the code whilst also commemorating a very special day held by both countries.

 

[Strewthcobber]

They should have > $100m in the bank on 1 Jan 2028.

But that isn't going to last long if they lose $10m a year because Wallaby games are the only source of revenue in the entire Australian rugby ecosystem

 

[LeCheese]

Let's not be parochial here, Dan. No one outside of the negotiating parties actually knows what was proposed. If any Govt. was willing to throw cash at it, making the fixture more profitable, then that's a pretty big carrot.

However, even without knowing all the details, it's pretty apparent that NZ Rugby didn't want to play ball on what appears to be a guaranteed money-maker, and are rightly getting dragged for it on both sides of the ditch. When the game is struggling (financially and w/ engagement) both globally and in our respective backyards, it's pretty hard to justify that sort of decision.

 

[Dan54]

Yep Cole, I admit that's main reason I not for it. Personal thing for me, I not comfortable using ANZAC day as a money spinner. I not against the idea of games being played on day really, just don't like it being used as the marketing tool.
As I said only personal opinion, but to me ANZAC day is more important day to both countries than other days like Good Friday etc we treat as more sancrocant. Apart from not really thinking we need more AB/Wallaby tests!

 

[Dan54]

And I think that was one of the reasons it got turned down, RA model needed all them to be played in Aus where the states pay big bucks for the tests, NZR didn't turn it down for any moral reasons, they would of jumped on it if the money worked for them long term I think.

 

[LeCheese]

Again, we don't know whether that was actually what was proposed, but even if it was:
a) one of the Bleds is played in Aus anyway
b) if it's a 50/50 profit sharing arrangement as reported, why would NZR not want it played in the venue that generates the most profit?

 

[Ignoto]

Dan and co, can you point to something NZRU that shows where their priorities lay in growing the game and how they achieve on doing that?

We (Australia) only see where they say No rather than where they want to grow.

 

[Dan54]

I would hope their main priority is growing game in NZ mate. Don't get me wrong, if it benefitted NZR enough , they would take the deal. Same as RA want it because it will grow the game in Aus I assume, and they are right to do so. Australian rugby isn't a NZR dependant, so both have differing wants no doubt. I really don't think another test against Wallabies (played always in Aus) will grow game in NZ in anyway. Reason they are going for more tests against SA, more interest amongst kiwi supporters. ,I think!

Again, we don't know whether that was actually what was proposed, but even if it was:
a) one of the Bleds is played in Aus anyway
b) if it's a 50/50 profit sharing arrangement as reported, why would NZR not want it played in the venue that generates the most profit?

No we don't mate, all I know is part of the reason for it being turned down that.
What NZR says is "When you look at the financial model of doing it home and away, it's vastly different to what the Australians are proposing with their model of funding.' . So as you say we don't know details, so what are RA proposing, that makes it attractive. Remembering there are 2 parties involved, and both seem to have differing proposals?

 

[Strewthcobber]

What best explains Australian Super Rugby teams ranking 1 to 4 for set piece origin of their tries in this year's Super Rugby?

Source OptaJohnny

 

[Major Tom]

Hmm either way you cut it, NZR were basically leading RA on, only to pull out the “not viable” line and offer no alternative ideas.
Their reasoning is lame. Super rugby could deffs pause or run without the stars for a couple of weeks (northern rugby does it for 6N). And they were going to be compensated pretty well anyways? Sounds like they just didn’t want an extra game game played in Australia. Odd as I think NZ probably gonna keep winning even if it was played on the moon! And tbh, if the wallabies did win the bled it would be the best thing for rugby and would drive more interest in NZ. I hope league and basketball continue to get more popular over there creating a bigger talent drain.

 

[Dan54]

@Major Tom , were they leading them on, or were they actually looking at all the angles before deciding. According to your reasons they should say no at start (and then get accused of not considering it) or they look at all angles to see if it stacks up for them.
I will add, I don't think there very little desire for another test against Wallabies from people here in NZ . Well I have not heard one perdon say 'geez the one thing I want to see is another AB/Wallaby test each year. I not sure if there a huge desire in Aus, I don't live there anymore, so only speaking about people I know in and out of rugby here in NZ.

 

[Major Tom]

Mate this game was floated at least a year ago. To which NZR basically said how enthusiastic and receptive they were. Surely, you would have expressed then your reservations. Basically, just waisted our time. It’s the bledisloe, people would deffs be interested on both sides of the ditch.
Anyways, the deal may not be dead in the water but the offer also may not stay there for long.

 

[stillmissit]

Interesting read, lamenting the loss of sport in public schools. Its not just a rugby a problem. A lot of high schools have just axed inter school sports.

Public schools ‘killing off sport’ as private school facilities grow

It has become an unequal playing field for NSW schoolchildren with inner west primary schools forced to cancel inter-school sports as some private schools promote state-of-the-art equipment.

www.smh.com.au

This quote below shows how parents, buses and logistics are killing off all sports in public schools. I knew it was happening to rugby, but this article is a shock.
A comment on the article you linked.
Students are no longer allowed to make their own way home from sporting grounds. They must be accompanied to and from school. This is from a legal and child welfare point of view and is supported by parents. School zones may include considerable distances between schools and between venues, again a limitation. High school inter-school competitive sport has been severely affected by these considerations. Private schools have Saturday sport and paid coaches. Parents in public schools would not support encroachment on Saturday, n

 

[LeCheese]

At least in Queensland, this has always been pretty typical for mid-week sports.

Mandating bus travel isn't the issue though - from a liability perspective it's basically unavoidable, and from a logistics perspective it makes a hell of a lot more sense. It provides assurance around the bus numbers each week, meaning you don't end up in a situation where you have too few or too many kids for the bus(es) booked, meaning you know how much you're going to be paying each week and that you're not going to be leaving kids behind.

The reality is also that many working parents are also unable to easily coordinate drop-off/pick-up at locations disparate to your kid's school during and around work hours. Despite their costs, the buses are a good thing - as the article describes, there are a multitude of factors that are leading to this issue.

 

[stillmissit]

LeCheese, the reality is that sports are dying at government schools. If that is not a reason for concern, then the country will end up with an epidemic of fat and diabetic kids with many on NDIS - We are well on our way to it already.

This is a quote from a 2017 report addressing the decline in sports at schools. Sorry the formatting didn't come across.
https://www.sportaus.gov.au/__data/...th_participation_project-full_report_acc2.pdf

Understand the secondary school student demographic
Sport, as it is being delivered, is less able to meet secondary student needs. This is particularly
true for disengaged students. It is important for sports and sport deliverers, schools and
teachers, and parents and guardians to understand the barriers that impact these students,
and what can motivate them to participate in sport for active and healthy lives.
Disengaged and physically inactive students are likely to be:
> female
> older
> from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds.
They are:
> less confident to participate in any sport
> less likely to perceive their family and friends as supportive
of them playing sport
> less confident to try new sports
> less likely to value sport.
What motivates them to participate in sport?
> To improve their skills and fitness for a healthier, more
energetic life
> To spend time with friends whilst having fun
{Boxed Groups}
went on no holidays in the past 12 months 20%
live in an area with a Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) of 5-7 41%
38% male
57% female
Average age
13.9YEARS OLD
40% had not participated in organised sport in the past 12 months

 

[Braveheart81]

That doesn't mean that kids aren't still doing sport for the same blocks of time as they have always done. It just means interschool sport is decreasing substantially.

The kids who are/were playing competitive sport are going to be the same kids playing in teams on weekends.

The kids who are overweight and are going to end up obese with type 2 diabetes were likely never the kids who were playing competitive sport. "Lifestyle" diseases are a massive issue but I think the answer is more complex than just whether or not interschool sport is offered at public schools.

 

[LeCheese]

I by no means suggested that reduced participation in school sports isn't problematic, simply that your implication around transport being one of the biggest issues was potentially misguided.

 

[LeCheese]

To @Braveheart81's point, that only considers organised sport. If you look at sports participation more holistically, you see that number reduced to ~25% (2022).

Sports participation rates have maintained reasonably stable among kids over the years (unable to locate a graph which shows this unfortunately, but the raw data is available), and has actually increased very significantly since 2001 when considering all age groups.

If you're interested, AusPlay (where I've pulled these from) have a substantial number of reports and raw data available.

Edit: Worth noting as well that participation in the 'Child' demographic is substantially dragged down by the 0-4 age group (~50%), with all other age groups sitting ~85%