Aussie Player Exodus

[Braveheart81]

@BH even with all the cuts the ARU is still projected to make a loss, and the Tahs as with the Force and Rebels are dependant on cash from head office to survive and also are close to making a loss this year with their low crowd figures early on, if not already there.

As for the TV deal, the Rugby brand has been in actual decline for man years now. I think it is pie in the sky stuff to expect any significant increase in the TV deal, in real terms and that is what the ARU must get.

Time will tell, but with a significant decrease in revenue in a RWC year much of the Lions money will be burnt and there are no reserves.

This is not really correct. All the Super Franchises are dependent on the distribution of their share of the TV revenue in order to pay players. This is an integral part of their revenue but I don't think you can fairly paint this is being dependent on the ARU to survive. It is their money by right.

The Tahs made a small loss last year but that still included paying ~$1m to NSWRU as part of their license deal. It's not like the business of the Waratahs lost money on their operations.

The Force to my knowledge have not been reliant on the ARU in recent years.

The Rebels received a large long term loan from the ARU to clear up Harold Mitchell's exit and are now consolidated within the ARU. There is certainly risk here and it is important that the Rebels don't continue to require large cash injections from the ARU to survive. It's too early for us to know how this situation is playing out.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Let's also remember, say what you want about the popularity of rugby, but it has merely regressed. It hasn't just imploded. Which leads to the point, what major sporting code has seen a drop, both in real terms or in general price in their TV rights anywhere in the world in recent years?

The A-League seems to have comparable but slightly lower ratings and have secured a deal better than our current one have they not? Surely this points to the likelihood that we could secure a marginally better TV rights deal than they did.

 

[Joe Mac]

Why not allow a total of 3 foreign- based players to be eligible for the Wallabies?

This would allow the Wallabies some much needed depth if we have an injury to a key position. For example, Douglas could be brought into the second row or one of our props playing in the NH could be brought in to bolster our scrum.

Three people is not enough numbers to incentivise fringe players to go overseas, but enough to bolster our depth when we need it. I fully appreciate that a key player like Izzy might start playing overseas, but he would also be back to don the green and gold and when the Wallabies are strong, rugby is popular. When Rugby is popular, TV/broascasting deals are lucrative.

In that scenario, it would also free up capital to invest in another marquee signing locally like Karmichael and allow both he and Izzy to be eligible for the Wobs.

 

[TOCC]

@BH even with all the cuts the ARU is still projected to make a loss, and the Tahs as with the Force and Rebels are dependant on cash from head office to survive and also are close to making a loss this year with their low crowd figures early on, if not already there.

As for the TV deal, the Rugby brand has been in actual decline for man years now. I think it is pie in the sky stuff to expect any significant increase in the TV deal, in real terms and that is what the ARU must get.

Time will tell, but with a significant decrease in revenue in a RWC year much of the Lions money will be burnt and there are no reserves.

Given your forecast of the ARU going under, I'm assuming you must have some Inside knowledge of what the predicted loss is, you must also know what the new TV deal is likely to be?

 

[swingpass]

Given your forecast of the ARU going under, I'm assuming you must have some Inside knowledge of what the predicted loss is, you must also know what the new TV deal is likely to be?

no, he is just being (pro)Gnostic

 

[EatSleepDrinkRuck]

How is the ARU set up, corporate entity wise?

That is, what would be 'folding' if they did go under.

 

[Braveheart81]

How is the ARU set up, corporate entity wise?

That is, what would be 'folding' if they did go under.

It's a public company limited by guarantee.

I'm not sure what exactly would happen aside from it creating a huge clusterfuck and taking a long while to sort out. Everything is so interwoven it is hard to know whether Super Rugby teams and Wallabies could keep playing in the short term. I really don't think it's likely to happen though.

 

[EatSleepDrinkRuck]

Yeah, I can't see anyone lining up to put the ARU into liq - no matter the low return, I reckon an informal DOCA settling all debts would be preferable to waiting the 5+ years it would take to wind the damn thing up.

It'd be interesting to see how it would affect SANZAR and IRB constitutions.

 

[Gnostic]

Given your forecast of the ARU going under, I'm assuming you must have some Inside knowledge of what the predicted loss is, you must also know what the new TV deal is likely to be?

No it is just a proGnosis from the symptoms, and my judgement of the likely outcomes. Sorry if I sound pessimistic (again! I am not really a pessimist, just a realist) but I just cannot see a massive TV deal for Rugby. Maybe NZ and SA will drag the deal up, but with declining viewership in Australia and reduced product that actually does rate under the new proposed structure, I just cannot see it. The ARU is totally reliant on the SANZAR partners stumping up significantly more cash for the ARU if there is only a moderate (or worse no real term increase) in the TV funding deal. As for the NRC providing another product revenue stream, I just dont see it from a business perspective, I love the game, and have no other real TV sporting interests, but acknowledge that nearly all the blokes I used to watch Rugby with every Saturday night no longer watch, Super Rugby and pretty much only watch the Bledisloe games. The base has been eroded that badly that it is basically starting from scratch and that doesn't generate huge dollars up front, certainly not enough to cover the reported requirements of the ARU.

 

[Omar Comin']

The A-League seems to have comparable but slightly lower ratings and have secured a deal better than our current one have they not? Surely this points to the likelihood that we could secure a marginally better TV rights deal than they did.

While rugby's average ratings for local games is slightly higher, Australian soccer produces significantly more content. And the proposed new 18 team super rugby structure will actually provide slightly less content than the current structure. Add that to the very obvious decline in the popularity of rugby, and the very obvious increase in the popularity of soccer, and I don't see how you could think we'll secure a better TV rights deal than they did. At least from the Australian broadcasters.

I think our big hope in the next deal is that the Currie Cup, NRC and ITM Cup rights all get thrown in the central SANZAR pot. The NRC is obviously the least valuable of the 3 right now, but perhaps it will be the most valuable in future given the size of the Australian market. In the short term the NZRU and SARU may be willing to go for a 3 way split of all that income so long as it remains a 3 way split in future.

Australian rugby really needs the NRC to be a massive success and a new golden age for the Wallabies would be very helpful. Legitimate expansion of super rugby and the rugby championship into Asia and the Americas might also help boost income, but all these things would affect the next deal, not this one.

 

[wamberal]

It has taken 100 years for competitions like the Currie Cup and the Kiwi equivalent to become as popular as they are, and neither has faced the sort of competition that rugby does in Oz.


Do you honestly, truly, believe that the NRC will reach anything like those heights any time this century?

 

[Omar Comin']

It has taken 100 years for competitions like the Currie Cup and the Kiwi equivalent to become as popular as they are, and neither has faced the sort of competition that rugby does in Oz.

Do you honestly, truly, believe that the NRC will reach anything like those heights any time this century?

I don't think it will ever attract the crowds and TV ratings of the Currie Cup, but to broadcasters one Australian viewer is worth a lot more than one South African viewer given the size of the economies.

And I don't think it will ever have the per capita support of the ITM Cup/NPC. But Australia has many more people.

The broadcast deals for the ITM Cup and Currie Cup are significant but not massive. To be in the same ball park the NRC would just have to gain the support of the existing base of Australian rugby supporters.

If the NRC could get to a point where all the matches were broadcast by Fox Sports and averaged around 60-70k viewers per match then it would be at a pretty similar level to the ITM Cup. I don't think that's unachievable. Keep in mind that the 2nd half of the NRC will be played after the NRL and AFL finish.

 

[ChargerWA]

Are Australian Super players paid significantly more than their NZ/SA counterparts?

Considering we all get a 3rd of the TV rights pot (I assume). Why are we so much more broke?

What other income streams do the ABs/Boks have that we don't.

 

[qwerty51]

AIG sponsorship deal with NZ rugby is HUGE.

Lots of Springbok sponsors too, so yeah mainly sponsors since their identities are much bigger in their countries they get more $.

 

[Omar Comin']

Are Australian Super players paid significantly more than their NZ/SA counterparts?

Considering we all get a 3rd of the TV rights pot (I assume). Why are we so much more broke?

What other income streams do the ABs/Boks have that we don't.

We don't share in the broadcast revenues they receive for the Currie Cup and ITM Cup. And the South African broadcaster paid overs for Currie Cup and unders for Super Rugby in the last deal to benefit the SARU.

Nevertheless, the ARU's revenues are higher than the SARU's. We make a lot more from attendance than they do. In the last few years (with the exception of last year, due to the Lions tour) I believe we've made slightly less than the NZRU.

I think we probably do pay players more.

 

[Train Without a Station]

That's due to competition internally for players though

 

[qwerty51]

ITM Cup isn't worth shit to the NZRU, they fund it and they make a loss on it.

 

[It is what it is]

AIG + Adidas + Air New Zealand + Steinlager sponsorship deals with NZ rugby is are HUGE.

Lots of Springbok sponsors too, so yeah mainly sponsors since their identities are much bigger in their countries they get more $.

 

[TOCC]

ITM Cup isn't worth shit to the NZRU, they fund it and they make a loss on it.

Isn't worth shit? Well that depends entirely on how you value the competition..

Firstly, NZRU receives $6.6millon/season for broadcast rights, and potentially another $2-3million in commercial support, based on 2011 figures NZRU gave grants of $11million in total to the ITM Cup Teams.

Including the initial $11million grant from the NZRU, the ITM Cup unions generated revenue of $68million in total. Of that figure, $33million was spent on team expenses, $19million was spent on 'growing the game' and $15million was spent on administration.

So essentially the ITM Cup is worth $68million/annum to the NZRU, whilst that $68million might not be on NZRU's balance sheet, it is still money invested into the game at grassroots level which the NZRU then doesn't have to spend or can at least receive a return from.

 

[Pfitzy]

Do you honestly, truly, believe that the NRC will reach anything like those heights any time this century?

well, not with THAT attitude, mister!