Australian Rugby / RA

[Pfitzy]

They don't have that option. Under the CBA the players are entitled to a certain percentage of revenue.

And when that slice of the pie is guaranteed, and the squad sizes are guaranteed, the only variable left to move is the player salaries - upwards.

That may sound good in the short term against offers from Europe and Japan BUT it takes the elite players further out of reach.

 

[Omar Comin']

The Rebels only want 4 teams as well, I assure you. Just as long as they are one of them.

If another team folds, for the sake of the argument let's say the Waratah's , it means that a team full of solid Super Rugby and Wallaby players suddenly come onto the market for the other 4 teams to divide up and bolster their respective teams.

That means we have 4 Oz teams that have a lot more depth. That doesn't equate to competitiveness though; coaching capability is another question for another time.

It also means we can skim the best of the ARC/SS/etc, rather than pluck out players that just aren't ready (or capable) of Super Rugby, just because we need to fill our team roster/injury cover.

I'm sure there are other minor details around money/tv/central control/whatever, but I could give two fucks about that.

The player reallocation bit makes sense. Sadly, one province is going to be sacrificed to make this happen.

This is actually the worst argument IMO for cutting a team. Rugby has the advantage of a global player pool, so if there's not enough quality players in Australia for 5 Super Rugby teams the best solution (i.e. the one that doesn't basically kill the game in an entire state) would be to allow more imports.

 

[wamberal]

On the heroic assumption that those imports would strengthen our teams enough to make them all competitive, thus making the Soup ratings, crowds, sponsorships and ultimately the broadcasting revenue sustainable in the long term?

 

[Omar Comin']

On the heroic assumption that those imports would strengthen our teams enough to make them all competitive, thus making the Soup ratings, crowds, sponsorships and ultimately the broadcasting revenue sustainable in the long term?

These are separate arguments, I was responding solely to the argument that we don't have enough players for 5 quality teams.

But I'm not sure being competitive will necessarily save super rugby in this country. It hasn't really helped the Brumbies for example, their crowds have been poor for the last few years despite generally being our best team. I think the concept is tired and has been beaten well and truly by the domestic focused sports.

 

[Cpt Crow Eater]

This is actually the worst argument IMO for cutting a team. Rugby has the advantage of a global player pool, so if there's not enough quality players in Australia for 5 Super Rugby teams the best solution (i.e. the one that doesn't basically kill the game in an entire state) would be to allow more imports.

This is what I don't understand.

As people have mentioned, there are always solutions.

Pulver and co say we're not competitive with 5 teams. Then up the imports for teams to make them competitive.
(In before "but Cpt what about the pathways for Aussies!!111 lol" .Well dropping a team has fluffed that argument)

The other reason is money. Well one team is privately owned and the other is at the cusp of gifting the ARU a few million bucks for their licence back and are starting to get their finances in order.

If the ARU warned the Force/Rebels whoever that if they don't lift their game there's a chance down the road the could be cut, perhaps the 'Own the Force' campaign may have happened years earlier.

The question should really be : Why has the ARU dropped this suddenly and why weren't other options delivered first.

And the next question is what are the ARU's plans for growing the game in the next 5 years and what happens to their revenue come 2020?

 

[charlesalan]

Some analysis of ARU v NZRU Corporate spend as a % of Revenue shows an interesting picture:
In 2011, ARU $ Turnover was 75.6 m, ARU Corporate spend was 14.7 m, 19.4 % while NZRU $ Turnover was $77.8 m (in AUD equivalent), NZRU Corporate spend was $5.6 m, 7.1%.
In 2016, ARU $Turnover is now $128.6 m, ARU Corporate spend is $14.6 m, 11.4 % while NZRU $ Turnover is $151.5 m, NZRU Corporate spend is $9.5 m, 6.3%.
Wow, lets cut a team, thats the problem.

 

[Dave Beat]

This is actually the worst argument IMO for cutting a team. Rugby has the advantage of a global player pool, so if there's not enough quality players in Australia for 5 Super Rugby teams the best solution (i.e. the one that doesn't basically kill the game in an entire state) would be to allow more imports.

What about importing all our exports back.
Or asking why exported in the first place.

 

[I like to watch]

Some analysis of ARU v NZRU Corporate spend as a % of Revenue shows an interesting picture:
In 2011, ARU $ Turnover was 75.6 m, ARU Corporate spend was 14.7 m, 19.4 % while NZRU $ Turnover was $77.8 m (in AUD equivalent), NZRU Corporate spend was $5.6 m, 7.1%.
In 2016, ARU $Turnover is now $128.6 m, ARU Corporate spend is $14.6 m, 11.4 % while NZRU $ Turnover is $151.5 m, NZRU Corporate spend is $9.5 m, 6.3%.
Wow, lets cut a team, thats the problem.

ARU corporate costs reduction $100k
NZRU corporate costs up by $3.9M which is almost 80% increase!
Turnover was roughly equal in 2011, in 2016 the gap widened by more than $20M.
We have lost substantial sponsorships this calendar year.
IMO the ARU are penny wise and pound foolish.
Sometimes cutting costs, does not save you money.
The ARU hijacking funds for high performance training centre to build corporate HQ, is another example. Winning Rugby teams generate vastly more income than what they might save in rent at St Leonards.

 

[p.Tah]

'Think rugby is struggling, try heading to the bush'. From Sept 2016.

Good article. This is what should get 45k likes on Facebook IMO

https://rugbynews.net.au/think-australian-rugbys-struggling-try-heading-to-the-bush/

 

[Omar Comin']

What about importing all our exports back.
Or asking why exported in the first place.

That'd be great, but Australian players are expensive compared to players from the pacific islands or South Africa or developing tier 2 nations (top players in the Americas, Eastern Europe, Africa etc who struggle for professional opportunities) - for many earning say $80-100k Australian dollars would be a huge amount of money.

 

[RedsHappy]

'Think rugby is struggling, try heading to the bush'. From Sept 2016.

Good article. This is what should get 45k likes on Facebook IMO

https://rugbynews.net.au/think-australian-rugbys-struggling-try-heading-to-the-bush/

Thanks p.Tah.

If that heart-felt piece is not exceptionally and authentically revealing re what's gone wrong with rugby here in the last decade or so, then nothing is.

The culture of patronising, self-regarding elitism like a dark poison eating away at the code's entrails.

 

[TOCC]

That'd be great, but Australian players are expensive compared to players from the pacific islands or South Africa or developing tier 2 nations (top players in the Americas, Eastern Europe, Africa etc who struggle for professional opportunities) - for many earning say $80-100k Australian dollars would be a huge amount of money.

how are Australian players any more expensive compared to a foreign player of similar talent?

 

[BLR]

how are Australian players any more expensive compared to a foreign player of similar talent?

Well for a player without huge exposure coming from Georgia they would be much cheaper than one from Australian of similar skill level because economics.

A bottle of wine/khinkali is cheaper there than here so logically a Georgian would have a lower 'leave Georgia' salary level.

 

[TOCC]

Well for a player without huge exposure coming from Georgia they would be much cheaper than one from Australian of similar skill level because economics.

A bottle of wine/khinkali is cheaper there than here so logically a Georgian would have a lower 'leave Georgia' salary level.

Right, so how does an Australian team recruit a player from Georgia who doesn't have much exposure? An expensive scouting and recruitment network?

Lets say an Aussie team recruit a lesser known Georgian of Super Rugby standard, once this player has gained exposure from playing in Super Rugby would their market value not then be equal to the Australian player who has already left the game?

Whats the economic cost then, lets say an Australian player would be willing to accept 20% less playing in Australia because its where his family and friend ares, whereas a Georgia doesn't have those roots to keep him in Australia, he is already a foreigner, at which case a Top 14 club which pays more and is closer to his home would seem like a more attractive option.

In the long term, i would argue that the cheapest option is recruiting Australian players, perhaps with a smattering of pacific islanders who want to remain close to home but don't have a domestic team to play for.

 

[KOB1987]

^^^^^^ absofuckinglutely


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Omar Comin']

Right, so how does an Australian team recruit a player from Georgia who doesn't have much exposure? An expensive scouting and recruitment network?

Lets say an Aussie team recruit a lesser known Georgian of Super Rugby standard, once this player has gained exposure from playing in Super Rugby would their market value not then be equal to the Australian player who has already left the game?

Whats the economic cost then, lets say an Australian player would be willing to accept 20% less playing in Australia because its where his family and friend ares, whereas a Georgia doesn't have those roots to keep him in Australia, he is already a foreigner, at which case a Top 14 club which pays more and is closer to his home would seem like a more attractive option.

In the long term, i would argue that the cheapest option is recruiting Australian players, perhaps with a smattering of pacific islanders who want to remain close to home but don't have a domestic team to play for.

Pacific Islanders are the most obvious and beyond a certain level I think you're right. But I'm referring more to guys who would be worth $70-100k, the types who maybe aren't going to be offered Top 14 contracts but if they were Australian or English they'd have professional opportunities. Look for example at the number of Australian 7's players who get Super Rugby contracts that aren't as good as the guys from Kenya, USA, Fiji, Canada etc. It's just that those guys don't have opportunities available to them.

There are other factors too, like an Australian player might have alternative employment opportunities that will pay similar or more money to a low level professional contract. Whereas that same money would be huge for a South African or Pacific Islander etc.

 

[Dave Beat]

That'd be great, but Australian players are expensive compared to players from the pacific islands or South Africa or developing tier 2 nations (top players in the Americas, Eastern Europe, Africa etc who struggle for professional opportunities) - for many earning say $80-100k Australian dollars would be a huge amount of money.

But if we bring in payers from America, Eastern Europe etc - there loyalty will only have them move on.
Making sport a profession, or a career has really changed the landscape - the old saying money can be the root of all evil...................

 

[Quick Hands]

'Think rugby is struggling, try heading to the bush'. From Sept 2016.

Good article. This is what should get 45k likes on Facebook IMO

https://rugbynews.net.au/think-australian-rugbys-struggling-try-heading-to-the-bush/

The article is basically a catalogue of what's happened to rugby in the past 15 years. The cavalier manner in which the ARU treats people involved in club rugby is shown again. Hopefully those ARU apologists and others who enjoy seeing the ARU stick it to the Shute Shield clubs might read that article and realise the contempt in which the ARU hold the lower levels of the game.

I'm sure that there will still be those on these threads who in deference to those they think of as their superiors will continue to defend the ARU. Maybe some harbour a secret desire to join the ranks of the elitists or like being attached to those who they consider to be elite.

BUT, as many of us have said for years and years:

If the ARU were a public company the board and CEO would have been voted out long ago by the shareholders. If it were a private company it would be in liquidation and if it was a local rugby club, those behind the desks would struggle to get a run off the bench in third grade.

 

[Omar Comin']

But if we bring in payers from America, Eastern Europe etc - there loyalty will only have them move on.
Making sport a profession, or a career has really changed the landscape - the old saying money can be the root of all evil.......

Happens with Australian players too. It's just a reality that players will move around in a professional sport. But you always get players who remain loyal to one club for a long time as well, whether they be locals or not. For instance someone could move here to play in their early or mid 20's, meet a local girl and settle down with them over the next few years, and then there is just as much incentive for them to stay as a locally born player. Perhaps more in some cases as a lot of people want to experience living outside of their home country, while the foreigner has already ticked that off.

 

[RedsHappy]

The article is basically a catalogue of what's happened to rugby in the past 15 years. The cavalier manner in which the ARU treats people involved in club rugby is shown again. Hopefully those ARU apologists and others who enjoy seeing the ARU stick it to the Shute Shield clubs might read that article and realise the contempt in which the ARU hold the lower levels of the game.

I'm sure that there will still be those on these threads who in deference to those they think of as their superiors will continue to defend the ARU. Maybe some harbour a secret desire to join the ranks of the elitists or like being attached to those who they consider to be elite.

BUT, as many of us have said for years and years:

If the ARU were a public company the board and CEO would have been voted out long ago by the shareholders. If it were a private company it would be in liquidation and if it was a local rugby club, those behind the desks would struggle to get a run off the bench in third grade.

Yes.

And when we reflect on that world of the Orange Emus and their local ways and feelings and, still, immense commitment to their rugby, we also observe the selection criteria - real or implied - for ARU board appointments.

The board that should span in its duties all levels and layers of the code in this country.

So we look at the 'from the elite, of the elite' 'hand-picked' ARU board.

Chairpersons of cruise companies, ex-CEOs of Microsoft, senior, elite-side lawyers, 'Ex-Wallabies with successful business careers', Ex Big 4 Bank CEOs. The patterning is very clear.

Do they have a single natural connection with grassroots or club rugby?

They just scream little else bar 'show me the VIP box at ANZ Stadium for Bled games'. And cocktail parties with Govt Ministers.

Can you see any of them getting in their M-Bs and driving to Orange for a weekend thanking and sitting with the Emus over a sausage and a coldie? And listening gently to them?