Australian Rugby / RA

[half]

Half,


I know I have banged this drum often, perhaps too often. But do you accept that the actual codes of soccer and league (not to mention the AFL) are actually more attractive to Australians than our sport? In other words, it is not a governance problem, it is not a franchise ownership problem, it is actually deeper than that.


An independent commission would have to begin at square one. What exactly will our actual and potential market pay to support, one way or another?


I keep coming back to the sheer necessity of doing some research. We are all guessing at what might or not be successful. There are only two paths we can follow. The first one is to try something new (whatever that is, a new domestic competition, a trans-tasman competition, an Asian Pacific competition). If the vehicle that is chosen survives, well and good. If it doesn't? We are out of chances. Surely it would be wise to put a bit of investigation into the selection and packaging of the product that will save our bacon?

Wam, in a word YES.

Meaning to succeed and survive we need excellence in governance and competition systems. Whereas we have by light years the worst competition and governing systems. Meaning we are hugely disadvantaged by our own management.

Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations, penned the quote that the owner farmer worked harder and took more care of the farm than a worker employed on the farm.

IMO its critical to have a separation of power, between the governing body and the professional game.

The professional game should be owned and run by teams competing in it. They keep all revenue and RA keep national team income.

 

[half]

The above article highlights how bias and favouritism was shown by RA in the team cutting decision. It clearly demonstrates supports my call for the competition to be self governing.

Like soccer with the Lowy family wanting absolute control and the game effectively had the courage to fight back but to be able to fight back you need the teams / clubs not to be owned by the RA.

RA control both the front and back office and that always leads to crippling problems in time.

 

[hoggy]

Wam, in a word YES.

Meaning to succeed and survive we need excellence in governance and competition systems. Whereas we have by light years the worst competition and governing systems. Meaning we are hugely disadvantaged by our own management.

Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations, penned the quote that the owner farmer worked harder and took more care of the farm than a worker employed on the farm.

IMO its critical to have a separation of power, between the governing body and the professional game.

The professional game should be owned and run by teams competing in it. They keep all revenue and RA keep national team income.

"Meaning to succeed and survive we need excellence in governance and competition systems. Whereas we have by light years the worst competition and governing systems. Meaning we are hugely disadvantaged by our own management".

Exactly

 

[wamberal]

My thoughts on doing some research. Firstly, just run an el cheapo job, based on existing supporters, using existing data bases. Would still need some expertise, but not much. This exercise would provide a baseline of ideas, and preferences.


Then do something deeper and more meaningful, which would imply using a decent market research firm (and this would be "consultancy" - we have to get over the mindless antipathy towards consultants and consultancy).

This survey would be properly designed and professionally administered, to ensure a degree of reliability. It would cost money to design and administer. But if it ensures a higher level of management confidence in a particular course of action, that is surely better than the finger in the breeze method.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

My thoughts on doing some research. Firstly, just run an el cheapo job, based on existing supporters, using existing data bases. Would still need some expertise, but not much. This exercise would provide a baseline of ideas, and preferences.


Then do something deeper and more meaningful, which would imply using a decent market research firm (and this would be "consultancy" - we have to get over the mindless antipathy towards consultants and consultancy).

This survey would be properly designed and professionally administered, to ensure a degree of reliability. It would cost money to design and administer. But if it ensures a higher level of management confidence in a particular course of action, that is surely better than the finger in the breeze method.

Don’t know where you’ve been wanberal but the ARU send one of these mindless surveys every year - little changes, maybe they dropped the bledislie ticket price once. They seem more interested in whether the pre- match was any good.
The military bands at the scg were fine with me but now we need fireworks - the same fucking ones every year, and the stupid inflatable dolls that rise up when Australian wins the toss.
Probbly save a mill per year on that shit alone.

 

[jimmydubs]

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?

Rugby. Friday and Saturday night every week of the season. With one home game every two weeks give or take so they can attend.

 

[jimmydubs]

Curiousier and curiouser...

The Western Force really didn't have a chance!

https://www.perthnow.com.au/sport/we.-ng-b88806001z

RA aid saved Rebels​

The Sunday Times - Perth - 15 Apr 2018 - NICK TAYLOR​

RUGBY Australia money helped clear the debt that saved the Melbourne Rebels and effectively signed the Western Force’s Super Rugby death warrant.​

The revelation comes after this week’s RA announcement of a $3.8m loss for 2017, citing the messy axing of the Force as one of the factors.​

Confidential documents obtained by The Sunday Times show the Australian Rugby Union — now RA — agreed to pay former Rebels owner, New Zealand businessman Andrew Cox, $300,000 and then-director Peter Sidwell $200,000.​

The money was then paid to the Rebels.​

The payments, contained in a Deed of Settlement Release, relate to “disputes” with the Rebels over RA’s threats to axe the Rebels and directs the money to the Melbournebased club.​

The documents also state two other directors Lyndsey Cattermole and Bob Dalziel “gift” the Rebels $250,000 each. The combined amounts effectively cleared the Rebels debt of $789,811 that allowed Cox to sell the club to the Victorian Rugby Union for $1 under a Put Option agreement, effectively spelling the end of the Force as the Rebels could then not be closed.​

The document says, among others, Cox and Sidwell “had suffered loss and damage as a result of statements alleged to have been made by or on behalf of the ARU on and from 10 April 2017”.​

On April 10, RA chairman Cameron Clyne said a decision on which team would be cut would be made after consultation with the Force and rebels.​

Four days later the Rebels issued a statement saying they “unequivocally” rejected that RA could “chop or cut” the club and had notified it of its intention to seek compensation.​

The deed of settlement says Cox and Sidwell: “. respectively direct that the respective payments to them be paid to MRRUPL for the purposes of MRRUPL satisfying the Debt Free Requirement and MRRUPL agrees that these payments will be used solely for this purpose”.​

It also says Cattermole and Dalziel promise to the ARU “. they have each gifted $250,000 to MRRUPL for the purpose of MRRUPL satisfying the Debt Free requirement and MRRUPL agrees that these gifted amounts will be solely for this purpose”.​

Cox used the put option and sold 11,625,000 Rebels shares to the VRU on August 4 for $1.​

RA and the Rebels did not respond to questions.​

Absolute disgrace.

 

[Tomikin]

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.

Like Hockey Multiple world champions over next ten years in men's and women's?

Sent from my HTC 2PS6200 using Tapatalk

 

[Quick Hands]

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.

Hockey runs off the smell of an oily rag compared to the bloated bureaucracy that administer rugby. As someone who has had some involvement in junior hockey, I can tell you that it it streets ahead of rugby in terms of elite development and grass roots engagement.

To give you but one example, Manly Warringah Hockey Club juniors had 60 registered players 6 years ago. Now it has over 400. All of these players have access to Hockey NSW programmes and the connection between the adminstration and the participants is quite close.

And we are world champions in both mens and womens.

 

[Braveheart81]

If rugby goes back to being an amateur sport globally I'm sure we'll do great.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

If rugby goes back to being an amateur sport globally I'm sure we'll do great.

I think you're missing the point QH is trying to make. Hockey has done (and considering I remember participating in 6 week long Hockey programmes back in my early years of school) a remarkable job of engaging with its players and potential players at a grassroots level.

QH has mentioned in the past an upskilling program they run open to all comers. That's a great initiative. Something we need to look at. We should be looking at how the likes of Hockey with less overall resources go about growing their game. Not dismissing it.

 

[Braveheart81]

I think you're missing the point QH is trying to make. Hockey has done (and considering I remember participating in 6 week long Hockey programmes back in my early years of school) a remarkable job of engaging with its players and potential players at a grassroots level.

QH has mentioned in the past an upskilling program they run open to all comers. That's a great initiative. Something we need to look at. We should be looking at how the likes of Hockey with less overall resources go about growing their game. Not dismissing it.

I am not disagreeing with it.

Clearly we need to do more to engage juniors. It does seem like things are improving in the last year or two though with the programs they are running.

Those junior programs are definitely where the comparisons and learning opportunities are relevant. I'm not sure it extends beyond that though. The two sports are wildly different in terms of how the financials of the sport look globally (particularly for players) which is where the biggest pull on funds in Australia occurs.

Australia continues to perform very strongly in sports that are largely amateur because we do have a good participation rate relative to a lot of countries and we pump huge amounts of money into Olympic sports relative to most of the competition which for sports that have very little money makes a huge difference.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I am not disagreeing with it.

Clearly we need to do more to engage juniors. It does seem like things are improving in the last year or two though with the programs they are running.

Those junior programs are definitely where the comparisons and learning opportunities are relevant. I'm not sure it extends beyond that though. The two sports are wildly different in terms of how the financials of the sport look globally (particularly for players) which is where the biggest pull on funds in Australia occurs.

Australia continues to perform very strongly in sports that are largely amateur because we do have a good participation rate relative to a lot of countries and we pump huge amounts of money into Olympic sports relative to most of the competition which for sports that have very little money makes a huge difference.

It's doesn't necessarily need to extend beyond that in the short term. The key to building a healthier game both now and well into the future is drawing in more youth interest and participation right across the board. From there you can grow the game alongside them as they mature.

 

[Quick Hands]

I think you're missing the point QH is trying to make. Hockey has done (and considering I remember participating in 6 week long Hockey programmes back in my early years of school) a remarkable job of engaging with its players and potential players at a grassroots level.

QH has mentioned in the past an upskilling program they run open to all comers. That's a great initiative. Something we need to look at. We should be looking at how the likes of Hockey with less overall resources go about growing their game. Not dismissing it.

Exactly WCR, but unfortunately the typcial rugby reaction is what we've seen on this page, which is to dismiss what other sports do as not applicable to rugby.

 

[RedsHappy]

Exactly WCR, but unfortunately the typcial rugby reaction is what we've seen on this page, which is to dismiss what other sports do as not applicable to rugby.

Perfectly paralleling the fact that the ARU/RA board has for years now preferenced 'high profile Sydney business people' and ex-Wallabies as board members over persons with outstanding records in some form of core sports administration and development.

Whilst our Wallaby, Super, grass roots results have gone from strength to strength.

 

[RedsHappy]

Absolute disgrace.

And what appalling ethics, deceitful lack of transparency and a shocklngly low attention to genuinely good board governance are betrayed by these sly and until now hidden ARU payments to Rebels directors who incurred local debts they themselves were not willing or capable of repaying.

Did I read correctly somewhere that Pulver was in fact paid a c. $750,000 'incentive bonus' in or for 2017. Could this possibly be true, surely to God not?

 

[Rebelsfan]

And what appalling ethics, deceitful lack of transparency and a shocklngly low attention to genuinely good board governance are betrayed by these sly and until now hidden ARU payments to Rebels directors who incurred local debts they themselves were not willing or capable of repaying.

Did I read correctly somewhere that Pulver was in fact paid a c. $750,000 'incentive bonus' in or for 2017. Could this possibly be true, surely to God not?

$500,000 on top of $775,000 salary

 

[RedsHappy]

$500,000 on top of $775,000 salary

If correct - not suggesting you're wrong - that is beyond belief. And as an already very wealthy man, Pulver, as a 'devoted rugby man', should have declined even the consideration of receiving an 'incentive bonus' given what a disastrous year was 2017 for Australian rugby in virtually every respect bar Womens 7s.

 

[barbarian]

According to the SMH he donated $300k to the Australian Rugby Foundation. So the bonus was a mere 200k.

 

[Rebelsfan]

According to the SMH he donated $300k to the Australian Rugby Foundation. So the bonus was a mere 200k.

any tax relief from the donation?