• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Australian Rugby / RA

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Back when players were not paid at all (amater), and NRL did pay, and over seas did pa I believe he retained and competed at a high level.


Professionalism has levelled the playing field though by making rugby less of an elite game (as far the players who are involved are concerned).

I don't think it is any accident that professionalism has increased the number of players of Pacific Islander origin in the top teams because it is a viable career and can be pursued from a relatively young age for a living.

There was a substantial level of privilege required to be able to dedicate enough unpaid time to play rugby as an amateur to make it to the top level and also get through uni, get a career etc.

For how many people do you think that was just never a possibility because they and their families couldn't afford them to pursue it?
 

RedsHappy

Tony Shaw (54)
The ARU just lurch from one problem to another - and when it's quiet on the SANZAR/IRB front they pick a fight with their major supporters by imposing a tax on the people who support the game and without whom there would be no game.
None of us are consulted about what we think should happen: once a year we are asked to complete a survey about whether we'd go to more games if the jerseys were a different colour.
They'd rather leave the true diehards - i.e. the posters on here, with our disparate views but our common passion for the welfare of the game - to speculate for a further 2 months, while any sane person would be de-investing their emotions from all of the 3 franchises said to be under threat.
I reckon their should ba "fan" seat or 2 on the ARU board: not bank gouging execs or former wallabies but people who have lived the grass roots.

Directionally, some of the wisest words ever uttered here.

The ARU is not competently or correctly structured for the tasks it has to perform in the sporting code and market competitive landscape of Australian pro sport as it's largely been for the last decade and a half.

Bankers, lawyers, cruise company CEOs, ex-Wallabies, ex-marketing data analysis execs as CEO, etc. (And predominantly Sydney-centric btw, that is another, but secondary, issue.)

The pattern of people sought for the ARU board and its dangerously self-referencing bias is very clear. Yet this is altogether the wrong type of 'prestige assemblage'.

What is desperately needed is a far greater bias to ARU board members demonstrably experienced in the skills and accumulated knowledge associated with building and leading and administering a successful mainline professional sports code or codes of some kind. This is absolutely a special skill set - pro sports codes' development paths are NOT the same as many other businesses, they require specialised competencies and knowledge and particular backgrounds of success and achievement.

Then I agree with you, at least 1 board member directly experienced in and passionate for our code's grassroots and elected by our fans, in some formally organised process every say 2-3 years.

We have no ARU directors of that type, none, zero.

People need to start realising that the central reasons the current ARU appear so bound to seemingly endless and supine deference to SANZAAR and 'the broadcasters' and so on, and with so few substantive ideas of their own to radically reform and thus save the code in this country, are that (a) deep down they know their recent strategies for the growth and even preservation of the code in Australia are a major fail and, relatedly, (b) the ARU does not have within it or at its direct disposal the calibre and type of board members and executives able to do any better.
 

RedsHappy

Tony Shaw (54)
Such a cop out, plenty of coaches have been overlooked for domestic coaching gigs for reasons other then money.. the coaching development pathway is even more broken then the players development pathway

You are entirely right.

The ARU has been run like a franchising business that's said: '.........great, we're going to expand our network by over 50+% but we've no need to worry about a program to ensure we have an adequate quantity and quality level of managers, trainers and supervisors essential to ensuring the quality of that expansion, and what it delivers to our customers, attracts and holds as a viable customer base..........'.
 

wamberal

Phil Kearns (64)
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Keebra Park High School on the Gold Coast (a noted conveyor line for the NRL) has just announced that they are switching their allegiance away from West Tigers, and to the CB Bulldogs.


I wonder how much money changes hands in this sort of transaction, and how many of them there are. Incidentally, one of the big reasons given was the quality of training and development infrastructure that will be available at Belmore. I wonder how the kids get there and back? Skateboards?



That is what we are up against.
 

Strewthcobber

Simon Poidevin (60)
The ARU is believed to be announcing a $3m surplus for 2016.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/rug...-silence-and-uncertainty-20170324-gv5py6.html


Fairfax Media understands the ARU will announce a 2016 surplus of about $3 million at its annual general meeting on April 10. It will be the first time the code has been in the black since the Lions delivered a $19.5 million surplus in 2013 and the best result outside that once-in-12-years tour since at least 2006.
Disregarding all of the Super Rugby debacle going on at the moment - it's good to be back in the black.

Having said that, if 2015 is anything to go by, the world cup years with the dramatically reduced home test match schedule cost the ARU in the order of $5-10m, so they need to be banking that $3m in the other years to cover the shortfall.

And hosting England over three test matches sure does help as well
 

USARugger

John Thornett (49)
Okay cool so that'll be going towards paying Force player salaries if this crap goes through..

Maybe we'll get lucky and it'll help bridge the gap after this Summer (mine, not yours) because there's no way those tests are gonna be bringing in too much $.
 

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
The ARU is believed to be announcing a $3m surplus for 2016.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/rug...-silence-and-uncertainty-20170324-gv5py6.html



Disregarding all of the Super Rugby debacle going on at the moment - it's good to be back in the black.

Having said that, if 2015 is anything to go by, the world cup years with the dramatically reduced home test match schedule cost the ARU in the order of $5-10m, so they need to be banking that $3m in the other years to cover the shortfall.

And hosting England over three test matches sure does help as well

$3,000,000/55,000 = $54
so each player in this country made the ARU $54 - when you think what most of them pay to play we are propping them up
 

lou75

Ron Walden (29)
I haven't seen the numbers yet, but rumours are that the ARU received an extra $48 m this year from tv rights and paid $10 to the five clubs, so what did they do with the $38 m? Some extra funding to Force and Rebels, yes, and still a profit, so what's the problem with the five teams then?
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
well about that
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...on-broadcast-rights-deal-20151216-glpiq9.html

maybe $57m if the $285 m is spread evenly over the five year contract.


They've gone from $23m to $57m a year under this broadcast deal. Of that $34m increase the article states they're distributing an extra $10m to the Super Rugby sides outside of what is used on player payments.

Of the rest of the increase, just over a quarter will go to increased player payments at Super Rugby and Wallaby level under the CBA.
 

lou75

Ron Walden (29)
ok $34 m - $10 m to the Super rugby sides = $24 m and so about $6 m to increased player payments, so $18 m left, with a $3 m surplus, where did the $15 m go?
They've gone from $23m to $57m a year under this broadcast deal. Of that $34m increase the article states they're distributing an extra $10m to the Super Rugby sides outside of what is used on player payments.

Of the rest of the increase, just over a quarter will go to increased player payments at Super Rugby and Wallaby level under the CBA.
 

Strewthcobber

Simon Poidevin (60)
I haven't seen the numbers yet, but rumours are that the ARU received an extra $48 m this year from tv rights and paid $10 to the five clubs, so what did they do with the $38 m? Some extra funding to Force and Rebels, yes, and still a profit, so what's the problem with the five teams then?

Was the $48m an increase from TV rights, or the total increase from revenue compared to 2015.

I could see the total revenue increasing by something like that, if you compare with the low of last year.

The ARU have a fairly massive revenue drop each world cup year from the big reduction in home test matches, and an inadequate compensation package from WR (World Rugby).
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
ok $34 m - $10 m to the Super rugby sides = $24 m and so about $6 m to increased player payments, so $18 m left, with a $3 m surplus, where did the $15 m go?


Of the $37m increase, 26% should go to increased player payments - so just under $10m, $10m more to the Super Rugby teams.

Presumably the cost of running Super Rugby has increased due to the expanded global footprint.

They also suggested that there would be greater distributions and expenditure on community rugby including growing things like Viva 7s and Womens rugby.

I guess we will find out soon when the financials are released the general areas where expenditure increased.
 

Brumby Runner

Jason Little (69)
BH, you initially said that just over 25% of the remainder, ie $34m - $10m = $24m went on increased player payments. That would be an amount in the vicinity of $6m. Just above, you have turned it around and said that 25% of the total additional amount went towards player payments, ie $10m. Do you know which it is? There is a fair discrepancy potentially in favour of the ARU.
 

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
BH, you initially said that just over 25% of the remainder, ie $34m - $10m = $24m went on increased player payments. That would be an amount in the vicinity of $6m. Just above, you have turned it around and said that 25% of the total additional amount went towards player payments, ie $10m. Do you know which it is? There is a fair discrepancy potentially in favour of the ARU.


I meant out of the increase from 2015 to 2016.

The CBA dictates that the players get a certain guaranteed percentage of player generated revenue (i.e. including the broadcast deal). I think that percentage is 26 but the latest CBA hasn't been released yet.
 

I like to watch

David Codey (61)
Alan Jones analysis is that participating in Super footy is losing money.....
The only things that can fix Rugby in Australia is to go back to to two provinces, and to stop calling themselves Reds & Waratahs.
Oh,and to appoint Alan Jones as Wallaby coach.
Seriously :(
 
Top