Australian Rugby / RA

[Inside Shoulder]

And this:
“For years the strategy has been to throw money at the top end, using a ‘star system’ in recruitment, and back the high-performance teams to generate the money to use elsewhere.”
When do these “high performance teams” play and how does one get tickets?
The simplest way to understand the implications of Cully’s point is this: oz rugby is top down, nz rugby is bottom up.
Who is higher ranked?
Before 1996 oz rugby was bottom up.
How did we do then and in the few years after?

 

[wamberal]

And this:
“For years the strategy has been to throw money at the top end, using a ‘star system’ in recruitment, and back the high-performance teams to generate the money to use elsewhere.”
When do these “high performance teams” play and how does one get tickets?
The simplest way to understand the implications of Cully’s point is this: oz rugby is top down, nz rugby is bottom up.
Who is higher ranked?
Before 1996 oz rugby was bottom up.
How did we do then and in the few years after?

In 1996 the game was just going professional. We made the transition remarkably well, in part because we learnt a helluva lot from league, particularly in defense. It took a few years for other nations to catch up, or catch on.


And of course we had the phenomenally successful Lions tour, not to mention the World Cup, in Oz. The halo effect of all this obviously helped enormously in attracting players and support to our game, at all levels.


Of course the boost was temporary. Market forces saw to that.

 

[Quick Hands]

In 1996 the game was just going professional. We made the transition remarkably well, in part because we learnt a helluva lot from league, particularly in defense. It took a few years for other nations to catch up, or catch on.


And of course we had the phenomenally successful Lions tour, not to mention the World Cup, in Oz. The halo effect of all this obviously helped enormously in attracting players and support to our game, at all levels.


Of course the boost was temporary. Market forces saw to that.

It was more than market forces which saw the decline.

This is not about administration being on the right track and making some mistakes on the way, this is about successive administrations which have adopted a top down strategy which is clearly not working. Now maybe it was ok to trial the top down strategy and if it worked, then keep doing it. But the strategy has been in place for at least 15 years, hasn't worked and there's no sign anywhere that it will work. In fact all the evidence suggests that it's working less and less well every year to the point where the game is at its lowest ebb in at least 50 years.

So it's not about making mistakes (although they've made a few), beacuse we all accept that sometimes we make the wrong call. They game could have withstood a few wrong calls, but what it hasn't and can't withstand is a flawed strategy overseen by a top-heavy bureaucracy which can't or won't change course.

 

[wamberal]

On the other hand, look at loig. How many mistakes, how much infighting (the Super League wars), how many scandals have they survived.

Why has their game gone from strength to strength, in the face of all those mistakes and other problems?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

In 1996 the game was just going professional. We made the transition remarkably well, in part because we learnt a helluva lot from league, particularly in defense. It took a few years for other nations to catch up, or catch on.


And of course we had the phenomenally successful Lions tour, not to mention the World Cup, in Oz. The halo effect of all this obviously helped enormously in attracting players and support to our game, at all levels.


Of course the boost was temporary. Market forces saw to that.

The playing personnel came from the amateur days until about 2005.
The initial success came from having players soundly based in a game they had played for love not money who were suddenly able to train a lot more.
It was only once the bankers et al got hold of the game that the rot set in.

 

[I like to watch]

It was more than market forces which saw the decline.

This is not about administration being on the right track and making some mistakes on the way, this is about successive administrations which have adopted a top down strategy which is clearly not working. Now maybe it was ok to trial the top down strategy and if it worked, then keep doing it. But the strategy has been in place for at least 15 years, hasn't worked and there's no sign anywhere that it will work. In fact all the evidence suggests that it's working less and less well every year to the point where the game is at its lowest ebb in at least 50 years.

So it's not about making mistakes (although they've made a few), beacuse we all accept that sometimes we make the wrong call. They game could have withstood a few wrong calls, but what it hasn't and can't withstand is a flawed strategy overseen by a top-heavy bureaucracy which can't or won't change course.

With that came KPI's for short term results being the only things measured.
JON's philosophy was there was that junior development was a cost,not an investment.
He had a short term view,because that's how he was incentivised.
BP took over and he just didn't understand there was an issue, his world view was village rugby till 13 then GPS which are strong,but only a tiny percentage of the Rugby base.
I recall overhearing him say that he was flabbergasted that kids were changing their lives for a few thousand dollars ( Holden/Toyota cup)
I was flabbergasted that he was ok to lose some of our best and brightest at that stage for what he thought were shekels.
Unfortunately I can't see the game being able to fund the long term investment,as their balance sheet inevitably contracts.

 

[USARugger]

On the other hand, look at loig. How many mistakes, how much infighting (the Super League wars), how many scandals have they survived.

Why has their game gone from strength to strength, in the face of all those mistakes and other problems?

People actually watch it.

 

[wamberal]

People actually watch it.

Shhhhh!!!!!

 

[Quick Hands]

On the other hand, look at loig. How many mistakes, how much infighting (the Super League wars), how many scandals have they survived.

Why has their game gone from strength to strength, in the face of all those mistakes and other problems?

Because despite the mistakes, the overarching strategy is right. That's why. And you've proved my point in one post.

As I said in my post (which I assume you read), rugby could have withstood the mistakes, what it can't withstand is the wrong strategy.

 

[Quick Hands]

With that came KPI's for short term results being the only things measured.
JON's philosophy was there was that junior development was a cost,not an investment.
He had a short term view,because that's how he was incentivised.
BP took over and he just didn't understand there was an issue, his world view was village rugby till 13 then GPS which are strong,but only a tiny percentage of the Rugby base.
I recall overhearing him say that he was flabbergasted that kids were changing their lives for a few thousand dollars ( Holden/Toyota cup)
I was flabbergasted that he was ok to lose some of our best and brightest at that stage for what he thought were shekels.
Unfortunately I can't see the game being able to fund the long term investment,as their balance sheet inevitably contracts.

If my reading of the balance sheets is even close to correct, the game is bascially operating as a ponsi scheme. If ever the next payment doesn't come, it will be time to fold up the tents.

 

[USARugger]

If my reading of the balance sheets is even close to correct, the game is bascially operating as a ponsi scheme. If ever the next payment doesn't come, it will be time to fold up the tents.

Most businesses would suffer severely if their revenue stream disappeared. Not exactly a Ponzi scheme by any definition of the term.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I’m still hoping Castle can deliver the goods. This from the Canberra Times has me somewhat concerned: “Fairfax Media has learned that Castle has enlisted the services of Nielsen Sports consultant Michael Tange to map out what Australia's Super Rugby involvement should look like in the next broadcast cycle, 2021-2025.”
Pretty sure Pulver was at Nielsen.
I hope she’s not falling into the old boy’s network.
Edit: he was http://www.nielsen.com/au/en/events/2014/consumer-360/bill-pulver.html

 

[Quick Hands]

I’m still hoping Castle can deliver the goods. This from the Canberra Times has me somewhat concerned: “Fairfax Media has learned that Castle has enlisted the services of Nielsen Sports consultant Michael Tange to map out what Australia's Super Rugby involvement should look like in the next broadcast cycle, 2021-2025.”
Pretty sure Pulver was at Nielsen.
I hope she’s not falling into the old boy’s network.
Edit: he was http://www.nielsen.com/au/en/events/2014/consumer-360/bill-pulver.html

Looking at involvement with Super Rugby in 2021-2025 is concerning in itself.

 

[2bluesfan]

Looking at involvement with Super Rugby in 2021-2025 is concerning in itself.

I am surprised that there is an assertion (at least) that RugbyAU are actually thinking about planning for beyond this year. I'm not sure if this is a gee-up. I was always under the impression that anything past the current year was just too far away.

 

[hoggy]

Looking at involvement with Super Rugby in 2021-2025 is concerning in itself.

The problem lies in them cherry picking any solutions provided and what parameters are that company given, often to ensure recommendations given are what the RA want to hear. and will we ever get to see that report.

The problems with the game here are now widely known and accepted, you don't need a consultant company to tell you that, the issues are that for any change to happen requires a desire for change and the drive to enforce that change.

Ask yourself this question, do the RA want to change.

 

[wamberal]

The problems are manifold. But the solution(s) are equally numerous. And most of them are problematic.


What is totally lacking is any kind of market research. What on earth does the average supporter want to watch?

 

[hoggy]

The problems are manifold. But the solution(s) are equally numerous. And most of them are problematic.


What is totally lacking is any kind of market research. What on earth does the average supporter want to watch?

One of the issues is the complete mish,mash of product that is presented to rugby fans over the season. From February to December there are so many multiple layers of competitions/games that especially for the casual fan, any pro-longed engagement is hard to garner.

Problem is how do you simplify the products to the consumer

 

[wamberal]

One of the issues is the complete mish,mash of product that is presented to rugby fans over the season. From February to December there are so many multiple layers of competitions/games that especially for the casual fan, any pro-longed engagement is hard to garner.

Problem is how do you simplify the products to the consumer

That comes down to something that I have banged on about: the willingness of ALL stakeholders at every level of the game to agree to work together. No matter what the best possible solution is, it will mean that some will win, and some will lose. If the losers accept their fate and agree to work together for the common good, we have a chance.


If we cannot reach consensus as a code, we will look like hockey in a few years. A minor sport. But I emphasise again, whatever we decide has to be built upon a proper reading of what the public will be prepared to buy.

 

[I like to watch]

The problem with that, is that it's the stakeholders with the most clout that are draining the game.

 

[hoggy]

That comes down to something that I have banged on about: the willingness of ALL stakeholders at every level of the game to agree to work together. No matter what the best possible solution is, it will mean that some will win, and some will lose. If the losers accept their fate and agree to work together for the common good, we have a chance.


If we cannot reach consensus as a code, we will look like hockey in a few years. A minor sport.

Agree, we need a consensus as to what we want the future to look like, but we are paying big time for short term solutions. I will argue vehemently the short term cash grab has led to much of this mish,mash we have now.

We have concentrated so much on presenting more & more content to create revenue, without increasing the value of any one product.

The market is confused.