Australian Rugby / RA

[Train Without a Station]

Thanks for the personal attacks Matt. Don't change.

You've beaten me down. I agree. Without the 12 clubs in Sydney, the other 758 would just disappear into a black hole. Sub-districts clubs would disappear because the district club is the only thing keeping them there.

 

[Braveheart81]

I think the finances of the Super Rugby franchises is a tricky thing. They are all so intrinsically linked with the ARU and are essentially unable to be allowed to fail from the ARU perspective. Our share of the broadcast deal is specifically linked to having 5 teams participating and that is how we moved our share of the revenue up to one third when the Super XV started.

For all intents and purposes, the split of the money from the TV deal is pretty arbitrary as far as I know in terms of the amount that is allocated as being relevant to Super Rugby. That money is then distributed to the franchises and their player payments are limited based on a salary cap.

Obviously you want the Super Rugby clubs to all be more financially independent and generate more revenue on their own and perhaps being driven by necessity because of their financial situation is seen as the best way to achieve this. If you provide the Super Rugby clubs with more funding do they just spend more money and lose just as much rather than working on improving their business and increasing their fanbase?

Clearly the Shute Shield clubs contribute significantly in providing a strong competition for players to play in and development for young players in particular. They also have an important role in assisting junior clubs in their areas which is important for the game and also important for their own interests because it helps produce future senior players and fans.

Bob Dwyer's comment about the Shute Shield clubs not looking at money from the ARU as a grant or funding but rather their rightful share of the revenue produced by the ARU is wrong in my opinion. They will never win that argument. The only people who have a specific entitlement to revenue generated are the players through their CBA to get a share of the revenue and the Super Rugby clubs who get a distribution based on the TV revenue.

The Shute Shield clubs have an active role in both of the key responsibilities of the ARU; making the Wallabies successful and growing the game. It seems like these are the two areas that the clubs around Australia should focus on and seek funding from the ARU based on criteria within those areas.

I think it is wrong for the Shute Shield clubs to harp on about the importance that NSW and Qld have towards Australian rugby and that those states produce the majority of the players. Everyone knows that but the simple fact is that NSW and Qld don't have complete control over the ARU.

If they take a sense of entitlement to the ARU it seems to me like they will be the losers because the other stakeholders and decision makers that they need on their side will resent them for that.

 

[barbarian]

For those who then sniff down their noses at Premier clubs paying players with money or kind, the Development Squad member's minimum pay from a Super franchise is just $1200 PER YEAR. So, if you're a player outside of the 35 Super squad and you want to give rugby a proper crack, the premier club is your lifeline. THERE IS NO ONE ELSE, except league or AFL, who will sign you up for $60k.

Should we allow there to be an arms race (because, surprise surprise, the Shute clubs are competitive between each other, IN THEIR COMPETITION and Sydney Uni has developed a strong inherent advantage)? No - but there are many ways that you can be sure that financial support for the clubs doesn't fuel this. No one is resisting this - it is a non argument.

I'm not sure the threat from League and AFL is as big as you make out at that level. I think it's a big issue with 15 and 16 year olds (another argument for supporting junior rugby), but generally by 18-19 it's all pretty specialised and the evidence is there isn't a huge amount of crossover, especially not with AFL.

Either way, these gun juniors aren't playing Shute Shield for the most part. They are playing Colts. Who are, again for the most part, unpaid. So the threat of AFL and League is there now, it has always been there.

Surely the answer to this issue is to increase the amount Super Development squads can pay their players, not Shute Shield.

And I think the Shute Shield clubs promising not to use ARU funds on player payments is laudable (though not publicly stated by Papworth in either post). But won't they just keep paying players out of sponsor revenue, and use ARU funds for tasks that once was funded by this revenue?

I don't agree this is a 'non argument' at all, because it cuts to the core of what Shute Shield is about. For all the talk of 'weary volunteers', top players are pocketing club cash on a weekly basis, which the Clubs are desperate to play down. Because it doesn't fit the narrative they are trying to tell.
.

 

[Scrubber2050]

Had a chat with a influential sports chap who reckons our future of Australian Rugby is totally linked to TV rights.
His view is that those rights could be increased by several times over by disbanding Super Rugby involving Argentina, Japan, South Africa, Australia and NZ.

I responded - you are f----- mad. We are expanding the game.

He says we should form a Super X Tas Rugby (or similar) Competition. in which only Australian and New Zealand teams compete - say 5 or 6 from each country.

Being open minded I continued to listen. He said we have basically the same time zones. Advertisers pay big for prime time direct games. Games played in Africa etc are often recorded because few of us get up at 1am or whatever to view the telecast "live". Viewers then fast forward the game to miss all the advertisements.

The most exciting games for Australians and New Zealanders are the derbys' and games between these 2 great rivals.

Much more money means we can retain the Kepu's, the Holmes, the Whites etc etc . If the $$$$ differential was minimal maybe players would be enticed to stay - probably enough to have 6 competitive teams (maybe) from each country

Another advantage of a substantial increase in advertising revenue is the support of clubs - that should be means tested but that's another discussion in itself

I started to think about the basic concept and can now see some merit.

Interesting ?

This concept may have been raised before and if so my apologies

.

 

[Braveheart81]

The problem is that the audiences in those countries aren't big enough.

I think everyone agrees that the biggest opportunity lies in the TV rights but it is all about creating a very strong competition and making it appeal to more countries.

NZ is a tiny but die hard (and saturated) market and rugby in Australia outside of test matches doesn't rate well enough to be on FTA prime time TV.

 

[kiap]

the example of Michael Hooper, showing just what Manly's involvement was in his development, even though he is seen as a young Super prodigy

Let's tease out the details of young Michael's path then, as posted in the blog comments.

1. Played junior and school rugby at Manly and St Pius.
2. Was in a Manly Academy (funded by the Marlins) for coaching and S & C ages 14 - 17.
3. Paid funds to assist with education, equipment and nutritional supplements.
4. Played colts rugby at Manly, did his S & C at a Manly funded gym with a program supplied by Manly.
5. Played 1st grade at Manly, albeit whilst contracted to the Brumbies.

Points 1 to 4: Great. Good to see an identified player getting this development. I'd think it would get the nod of approval from most involved in the game.

Point 5, as it relates to the Shute Shield competition itself, though, is illustrative. The Brumbies at that stage were subsidising the player to turn out for Manly.

From the main blog text, Manly were in the hole for $86k last year. Let's do a rough calculation and divide by 400 (for say 20 players for 20 weeks - I just want to use round numbers). That'd be around $215 for a player for a week.

How much did Manly play their Shute players last year to finish runners-up in the comp? ... Was it a couple of hundred bucks each per week?

The things that need clarifying are these - Are the Shute clubs claiming they need boot money for their players (and how much?) or do they want to prioritise points 1 to 4 in the list above?

If it's the latter, then stop paying the club players in Shute. - Problem solved. - If it's the former then let's hear these clubs be bold. There's no need to be embarrassed to say they want ARU allocated money to be put into the pockets of club players.

Once that's clear, there can be an argument about whether it's the best bang for the buck.

 

[Highlander35]

Would the Kiwis want a Trans-Tasman League? Without Super Rugby, would they not prefer to maybe just restructure the NPC again? Whether that's just combining the Premiership and Championship and doing a double round robin, or restructuring into a 12-10-10 3 division structure or whatever.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^^^^^^^^^^^ NZRU have made it pretty clear over the last 20-odd years that they want as much contact with SA as possible, at every level possible, not least IMO because SA is in more or less the the same time zones as UK & Europe ergo brings more broadcast rights $$$$$$$ to the table than any purely trans-Tasman comp ever could.

In an ideal world I'd ditch Super Rugby in a heartbeat & find a way to merge your NRC with our M10 Cup & Heartland Championship, but I'm realistic enough to realise it ain't gonna happen because the NZ & Strayan (actual & potential) markets are just too small. Like it or not, we need UK & Europe's $$$$$$ & SA is the only way we're likely to be able to access it.

 

[barbarian]

Brett has had another crack:

http://www.rugbynews.net.au/brett-papworth-aru-ignored-findings-of-club-rugby-report-2/

It's just getting bizarre now. Basically accuses the ARU of fraud, not to mention arguing against the Melbourne Rebels (does anyone in their right mind think a Western Sydney Super team would ever be viable??).

Again there are some decent points hidden in there. Those finacial figures are staggering, if true, and is a good argument for funding. But it's so deep in there, and so surrounded by rubbish that it gets totally lost.

Can't see how this aids his cause at all. If I were another Shute Shield President I'd be telling him to shut his trap.
.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Again there are some decent points hidden in there. Those finacial figures are staggering, if true, and is a good argument for funding. But it's so deep in there, and so surrounded by rubbish that it gets totally lost.

I wonder if those investment figures were the clubs' revenues or the clubs' expenses?

It is interesting that he brought up the Premier Rugby Taskforce Review - as I understand it, that was the findings in that document which has been used to justify the cuts and to move so much of the player development under the ARU umbrella

Georgina Robson had a copy, even if it doesn't appear to be public these days
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...living-near-the-breadline-20130214-2efyj.html

The review would have been done while the clubs were still getting $100k from the ARU right?

'The taskforce considers that the poor financial state of the majority of clubs, with some at high risk of failure, places at risk not just individual clubs but the competitions they participate in,'' the report said.

It found seven Sydney clubs made financial losses in 2010, nine made losses in 2011 and seven were expected to make losses last year, totalling almost $1.3 million in combined losses over three years.

The review, conducted by the ARU using interviews with all clubs and three years' worth of financial data, also found most were severely lacking in their high-performance program.

It paints a stark picture of proud clubs that still see themselves as nurseries for Australia's rugby talent and the country's only legitimate ''third tier'' but, for the most part, can no longer provide emerging players with rugby and fitness programs that are up to standard.

Clubs spent an average of about $110,000 on player payments each year, a figure that excluded payments in kind and services, the review found. But it was noted that most clubs were probably underestimating their expenditure on player payments for fear of being stripped of ARU funding.

 

[I like to watch]

If I was another SS pres,I'd be asking Pappy if he had a copy of the report quoted.
They are entitled to be blowing up if the ARU commissioned a report & acted contrary to its recommendations.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Had a chat with a influential sports chap who reckons our future of Australian Rugby is totally linked to TV rights.

He says we should form a Super X Tas Rugby (or similar) Competition. in which only Australian and New Zealand teams compete - say 5 or 6 from each country
.

The issue, even more so these days, is that both the ARU and the NZRU make a very large portion of their revenue from UK TV - BSkyB paid in the order of tens of millions of dollars per year. Those SA games don't rate well here, but they are perfect for GMT.

 

[Strewthcobber]

If I was another SS pres,I'd be asking Pappy if he had a copy of the report quoted.
They are entitled to be blowing up if the ARU commissioned a report & acted contrary to its recommendations.

That article from Robson suggests they all got a copy

There was much consternation among club and union presidents this week that the report found its way off their desks and into the hands of the public.

There was a bit of talk here on the forum re this review at the time. I think this article was the closest we ever saw to what would be coming - and this was in 2013.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...-new-plans-for-city-comps-20130613-2o74r.html

Also on the cards, The Breakdown has been told, is a blanket ban on clubs making player payments and a reduction in direct ARU funding from about $40,000 a year to almost nothing.

Of course, most of the article looks wrong now - so take the pinch of salt.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

The issue, even more so these days, is that both the ARU and the NZRU make a very large portion of their revenue from UK TV - BSkyB paid in the order of tens of millions of dollars per year. Those SA games don't rate well here, but they are perfect for GMT.

Well, actually I remember reading that the Aus/NZ games were the ones that rated in the UK.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Well, actually I remember reading that the Aus/NZ games were the ones that rated in the UK.

Do you know where that was?

6:35am and 8:40am games don't tend to rate anywhere in the world - but I'd love to be corrected. They wouldn't be up against much at that time too. The more games in our timezone the better.

 

[Highlander35]

The advantage of Super Games in the morning is that it doesn't overlap into local rugby. Whether that be truly local, Provincial/National or International rugby doesn't matter, it just means people are around to watch it.

But the big advantage will lie in the Saffa games come European and domestic finals, as well as following the June Internationals, when there's a significant reduction in the local game, and you can watch a couple of afternoon super rugby games instead.

 

[Gagger]

Brett has had another crack:

http://www.rugbynews.net.au/brett-papworth-aru-ignored-findings-of-club-rugby-report-2/

It's just getting bizarre now. Basically accuses the ARU of fraud, not to mention arguing against the Melbourne Rebels (does anyone in their right mind think a Western Sydney Super team would ever be viable??).

Again there are some decent points hidden in there. Those finacial figures are staggering, if true, and is a good argument for funding. But it's so deep in there, and so surrounded by rubbish that it gets totally lost.

Can't see how this aids his cause at all. If I were another Shute Shield President I'd be telling him to shut his trap.
.

How do you get to that conclusion? This is saying the ARU commissioned a report that supported everything in the arguments behind the SS & Prem clubs, and pretty much blows out of the water all the speculation in this thread:

According to the email from the former senior ARU figure, it also stated:

- The importance of the premier competitions in Sydney and Brisbane to sustaining the professional game.

- That Sydney and Brisbane clubs were the engine room of rugby in Australia.

- That the ARU’s very clearly articulated position at the time was that the clubs played an important role in the professional player pathway and the essential need for this to continue.

- The report noted that in addition to supporting high performance requirements, clubs at all levels play a role in sustaining and expanding the audience and keeping people interested in rugby. Therefore, deliberate attention to the part clubs can play in this as part of an overall marketing effort is also important.

- The Sydney and Queensland premier competitions were responsible at the time for more than 73% of the participant player base and supplied/serviced 133 of the 175 professional players.

- Narrowing down the participation base to the 40,000 senior players, when split by states with a Super Rugby team the numbers were very stark; NSW: 19,000; Qld: 10,000; ACT: 3,000; Victoria: 2,500; WA: 3,300.

- As important were the financial numbers, where on average the Sydney and Queensland clubs were annually investing a total of $12.45 million (Sydney: $7.91m; Qld: $4.54m) in their respective clubs and competitions not including the significant commitment by volunteers.

- The report noted that the value of the volunteer base that the clubs bring to the table is not simply in cost savings but in the wealth of knowledge, experience and passion for rugby.

- Professional rugby could not replace this investment, so the report recommended that club rugby needs to be retained, nurtured and supplemented in order to achieve a greater return for the game.

So now you've got the Clubs telling you, RUPA telling you and even the ARU's own reports telling you.

But nope still not convinced.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Let's tease out the details of young Michael's path then, as posted in the blog comments.

1. Played junior and school rugby at Manly and St Pius.
2. Was in a Manly Academy (funded by the Marlins) for coaching and S & C ages 14 - 17.
3. Paid funds to assist with education, equipment and nutritional supplements.
4. Played colts rugby at Manly, did his S & C at a Manly funded gym with a program supplied by Manly.
5. Played 1st grade at Manly, albeit whilst contracted to the Brumbies.

Points 1 to 4: Great. Good to see an identified player getting this development. I'd think it would get the nod of approval from most involved in the game.


Point 5, as it relates to the Shute Shield competition itself, though, is illustrative. The Brumbies at that stage were subsidising the player to turn out for Manly.

From the main blog text, Manly were in the hole for $86k last year. Let's do a rough calculation and divide by 400 (for say 20 players for 20 weeks - I just want to use round numbers). That'd be around $215 for a player for a week.

How much did Manly play their Shute players last year to finish runners-up in the comp? ... Was it a couple of hundred bucks each per week?

The things that need clarifying are these - Are the Shute clubs claiming they need boot money for their players (and how much?) or do they want to prioritise points 1 to 4 in the list above?

If it's the latter, then stop paying the club players in Shute. - Problem solved. - If it's the former then let's hear these clubs be bold. There's no need to be embarrassed to say they want ARU allocated money to be put into the pockets of club players.

Once that's clear, there can be an argument about whether it's the best bang for the buck.

But the argument over the benefit of the Shute Shield isn't about these is it? It's about the irreplaceable benefit that the Shute Shield, the senior 1st grade competition has.

Michael Hooper started playing for Manly Roos. He was identified because of that. If Manly Marlins did not exist would Michael Hooper not? Because they got to him at 14 before other systems identified him at 16 they are the ones they developed him from just a junior player to an elite one? I'd imagine he was identified for the same reason he was by the NSW Under 16 team - because he was playing better than those around him. If you want to argue your irreplaceable benefit your claim to players can't just be that you got there first.

I doubt that. On the Gold Coast the local junior competition was run separately to the Gold Coast Breakers. Players like Jarred Butler were still identified to then go into the rep teams and programs. Because every sub-union has representative teams. Hell even the subbies comp has rep teams.

These clubs don't exist because sub-unions above them exist. Sub-unions above them exist because the clubs below them exist. It has gotten twisted in NSW because many SS Clubs pre-date the Junior clubs then over time they have taken a quasi sub-union role, though the sub-union is really the SJRU. If you want to see what happens when you take out the sub-unions, look at QLD where 2 have gone broke and the QRU have merely come in to take over so the competition continues whilst they develop a measure for them to sustain themselves long term.

If the clubs are happy to claim how great the Wallabies are because of them on the basis they are the bottom and feed up to the top, where's the recognition of the levels below them? They seem to see it as a diamond, not a pyramid. The level above couldn't exist without them and they get nothing out of it, but then the level below couldn't exist without them and they provide plenty to it.

My attacks are not on club rugby. Specifically I think the AU should be funding junior levels through reduced fees, increased resources to build the junior numbers and then focus on identifying and developing talent at this level.

My criticism is the claim that 12 senior clubs provide an irreplaceable benefit as senior clubs and should be subsidized/funded as such. Because players are just not identified and developed at that level in 2016.

For all the claims on all this money that the Shute Shield clubs are putting into the junior level, looking at Randwick's financial report (Because it is the only full 2015 report I can find other that Sydney Uni) the only mention I can find specifically of junior rugby is in coaching expenses where they spend $1,192 of $77,408 on "Schools & Junior Clubs". They have a Colts Academy with no income or expenditure.

I can only assume there $80,000 on uniforms would cover their district rep uniforms. I doubt the $54,000 they spend on scholarships extends too far below senior level because if that was $2000 a player it's only covering around 27 players.

 

[Train Without a Station]

"The report noted that in addition to supporting high performance requirements, clubs at all levels play a role in sustaining and expanding the audience and keeping people interested in rugby. Therefore, deliberate attention to the part clubs can play in this as part of an overall marketing effort is also important. "

 

[kiap]

So now you've got the Clubs telling you, RUPA telling you and even the ARU's own reports telling you.

But nope still not convinced.

Clubs: it's in the clubs' self interest to get more money.

RUPA: it's in the players' self interest to get more money.

ARU: This is the predecessor ARU, who Pap had just finished smearing as having rigged the candidacy for the 15th Super license.

“​

... all of us who jumped through hoops to apply for the 15th Super Rugby franchise were basically just for show. So the ARU could say they had been through an exhaustive selection process. It was already a done deal! They bloody well knew! ​

”​

He's tantamount to accusing the ARU of fraud in one sentence, and then trumpets some hearsay on one of the same ARU's reports the next.