Australian Rugby / RA

[Ignoto]

The only one who benefits out of this whole mess is newscorp and can’t help but feel they played a lead role in all this and very successfully. I personally feel somehow to ever find a viable long term solution is to jettison ourselves from newscorp but irony is now with what has gone on while there was a chance of that happening - it seems there is no chance now.

Newscorp are sinking and bringing everyone down with them on how they're carrying out. Foxtel had $800m (or 35-40%) written off by NewsCorp and Telstra yesterday.

 

[hoggy]

I think you're being naive if you think whole sorry mess was caused by 10 ex-Wallaby captains writing an open letter.

What we're seeing now has been 15 years in the making. Poor decision-making, lack of strategic planning, inflated wages for players and head office staff, profligate spending on ageing league stars, top-down policy which neglected anything below the professional level, lack of accountability at board level, cosy corporate culture where only those in the know are involved, toxic culture of jobs for mates and a complete breakdown in relations between different levels of the game. On turning professional rugby kept the worst parts of the amateur game (jobs for the boys) and took on the worst parts of professionalism (corporate hacks and inflated middle management).

As for Foxtel and Newscorp, there are many on here who have short memories for most of the time that Fox has broadcast rugby, it's presenters and commentators have basically ignored all of the above issues and presented syrupy, sycophantic stories to try to present the game and its leadership in a positive light. To the point where we had then ARU board member John Eales as a paid panelist on the weekly programme assuring us how well things were going. During the Patston/Link/Beale affair the News Ltd papers were held up on these threads as providing sensible coverage while Fairfax and Georgina Robinson in particular were accused of trying to destroy the came for their own commercial purposes.

Let's be clear - all large commercial media companies enter into any agreement to make the most possible money for the company and the shareholders. They have no duty to prop up the game or to protect it from the ineptitude of its own administration, they will do so only when it suits their commercial purpose. It's fanciful to think that Optus would have any less commercial imperatives than Fox. It's also fanciful to think that FTA networks are any better. We only have to look at the NRL where Channel 9 and the Fairfax papers ran a campaign against their CEO Todd Greenberg which was just as relentless as what Castle faced. 9 have barely hidden their desire to drive down the value of NRL broadcast rights so that they can pay less for the next deal.

Pro-rugby has failed in Australia because the administration have never deviated from the pan-continental super rugby model. Even when faced with growing evidence that it wasn't working in Australia, they put their heads down and ploughed on regardless. No change of direction when crowds dropped by 60% or the standard of our teams dropped. Refusal to adapt means death in the commercial world.

Rugby has nobody to blame for our current predicament other than ourselves. And it's not until the game and those running it acknowledge that and rule a line under the whole sorry mess and starting again that there is even a hope of turning it around. We're the laughing stock of the rugby world and trying to deflect the blame onto others just doesn't cut it.

What's even worse is that this whole sorry shambles has been both foreseen and foreseeable. There's been quite a few people predicting this for a decade or more. Coronavirus has just created the perfect storm for it all to come crashing down.

I completely agree with this.

 

[hoggy]

And then f____k me, I click on this in the SMH, is the penny finally dropping, good old Georgina Robinson. Seriously its not fucking Rocket Science.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...-rugby-s-future-is-local-20200508-p54r97.html

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I think you're being naive if you think whole sorry mess was caused by 10 ex-Wallaby captains writing an open letter.

What we're seeing now has been 15 years in the making. Poor decision-making, lack of strategic planning, inflated wages for players and head office staff, profligate spending on ageing league stars, top-down policy which neglected anything below the professional level, lack of accountability at board level, cosy corporate culture where only those in the know are involved, toxic culture of jobs for mates and a complete breakdown in relations between different levels of the game. On turning professional rugby kept the worst parts of the amateur game (jobs for the boys) and took on the worst parts of professionalism (corporate hacks and inflated middle management).

As for Foxtel and Newscorp, there are many on here who have short memories for most of the time that Fox has broadcast rugby, it's presenters and commentators have basically ignored all of the above issues and presented syrupy, sycophantic stories to try to present the game and its leadership in a positive light. To the point where we had then ARU board member John Eales as a paid panelist on the weekly programme assuring us how well things were going. During the Patston/Link/Beale affair the News Ltd papers were held up on these threads as providing sensible coverage while Fairfax and Georgina Robinson in particular were accused of trying to destroy the came for their own commercial purposes.

Let's be clear - all large commercial media companies enter into any agreement to make the most possible money for the company and the shareholders. They have no duty to prop up the game or to protect it from the ineptitude of its own administration, they will do so only when it suits their commercial purpose. It's fanciful to think that Optus would have any less commercial imperatives than Fox. It's also fanciful to think that FTA networks are any better. We only have to look at the NRL where Channel 9 and the Fairfax papers ran a campaign against their CEO Todd Greenberg which was just as relentless as what Castle faced. 9 have barely hidden their desire to drive down the value of NRL broadcast rights so that they can pay less for the next deal.

Pro-rugby has failed in Australia because the administration have never deviated from the pan-continental super rugby model. Even when faced with growing evidence that it wasn't working in Australia, they put their heads down and ploughed on regardless. No change of direction when crowds dropped by 60% or the standard of our teams dropped. Refusal to adapt means death in the commercial world.

Rugby has nobody to blame for our current predicament other than ourselves. And it's not until the game and those running it acknowledge that and rule a line under the whole sorry mess and starting again that there is even a hope of turning it around. We're the laughing stock of the rugby world and trying to deflect the blame onto others just doesn't cut it.

What's even worse is that this whole sorry shambles has been both foreseen and foreseeable. There's been quite a few people predicting this for a decade or more. Coronavirus has just created the perfect storm for it all to come crashing down.

I agree with everything you said, but I don’t think this was all caused by the open letter but more frustrations that the open letter reflects the politics at play and the NFj quoted ‘process’ - yeh I know this politics is diverse and complicated and reflects 15 years of heritage and the open letter and different parties motivations (Kearns, nfj etc) behind it is a small iceberg in the broader, bigger and wider oz political landscape which you alluded to. But will state that clear objective of the open letter was to remove Castle (and not Naive about that) which appear succeeded and short term I think keeping castle would have been better option despite whether castle right person long term.

It probably needs a catylst (miracle) at this point, what that could be or even possible who knows (world rugby nation concept getting funded - collaboration with nz for trans Tasman - collaboration with twiggy and rapid rugby or something else ie the countless debate and suggestions that get debated as nauseum). We know super rugby is dead but is there the horsepower to find an answer or do they keep trying to only tinker around the edges for a model that is tired, broken and past its use by date.

Anyhow back over to others on this as I think time to get some popcorn and sit in the shadows and watch this unfold or unwind.

 

[dru]

Anyhow back over to others on this as I think time to get some popcorn and sit in the shadows and watch this unfold or unwind.

+1

 

[mst]

Article in today's Hurld re: the possibility of NZR partnering with a private equity firm contains this snippet which should be of great concern both to the Australian rugby community & Rugby Australia:

"Can the professional game in the short term survive over there?" asked an NZR source. "Will they actually have enough money to pay for the Reds, Waratahs, Brumbies and Rebels? How are they going to pay the Wallabies?

"Are they going to have to return to Manly versus Randwick club rugby and have their best players playing overseas?

"It's really difficult to look at Australia with multi-million losses and figure out how they're going to get out of that hole.

"I think we have to ignore Australia because it's too much of a variable."

Last sentence is in the context of a Trans Tasman comp.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=12330421

TBH WoB, this its sadly not new nor a shock in reality. The "ignore" Australia line is what I think will happen until the current state based RU setup and club rugby obsession is ended.

Aussie rugby has known for years that we are struggling for both income, market share and relevance but we just won't do anything about it. To get a decent reliable income, you need market share and relevance in your own country. Super Rugby is not that product, nor is the current club competitions.

Aussie rugby has to accept that we (State RU's and RA) have locked ourselves out of the market. Humiliatingly, this was our choice to put ourselves here. The NRC or equivalent was the right vehicle that could have started to get back in to the domestic market but they missed the boat and we have nothing to offer to the Aussie market or broadcasters that is of any real value. We have 4 professional teams. What can you do with that?

When the call goes out for content post COVID the FFA, netball, basketball, baseball and all the "minor" sport will be laughing as they offer up their domestic competitions with RA no longer in the line. Aussie Rugby is better off lining up at Netflix and pitching a drama / reality. Something akin to the real housewives shows. The real board members of Rugby? We already have all the ingredients: hissy fits, bitchiness, backstabbing, drama, gossip, power games and ego trips and out of touch ignorance. Think of the spin offs RA could produce!

From a business perspective I would mostly agree with cutting ties with Aussie rugby. It is a risk that could compromise your product and hurt you financially. What benefits does it bring to NZ rugby or the NZRU? I think the SARU, as many other RU's will be thinking the same.


This line is absolute gold and sums up the whole issue with Aussie Rugby succinctly "Are they going to have to return to Manly versus Randwick club rugby and have their best players playing overseas?"

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

^ then on the other hand you've got NZR Chairman Brent Impey talking up the Trans Tasman relationship at every opportunity (tbf he also talks up the NZ-SA relationship just as much) so maybe RA isn't seen as a basket case by those actually running the joint. Hard to say but I guess we'll find out in the fullness of time. FWIW if Super Rugby can't be salvaged my next option would be Trans Tasman & bringing at least Fiji & in due course a Polynesian entity, perhaps a Samoa/ Tonga JV based in Auckland or Western Sydney.

 

[RedsHappy]

I think you're being naive if you think whole sorry mess was caused by 10 ex-Wallaby captains writing an open letter.

What we're seeing now has been 15 years in the making. Poor decision-making, lack of strategic planning, inflated wages for players and head office staff, profligate spending on ageing league stars, top-down policy which neglected anything below the professional level, lack of accountability at board level, cosy corporate culture where only those in the know are involved, toxic culture of jobs for mates and a complete breakdown in relations between different levels of the game. On turning professional rugby kept the worst parts of the amateur game (jobs for the boys) and took on the worst parts of professionalism (corporate hacks and inflated middle management).

As for Foxtel and Newscorp, there are many on here who have short memories for most of the time that Fox has broadcast rugby, it's presenters and commentators have basically ignored all of the above issues and presented syrupy, sycophantic stories to try to present the game and its leadership in a positive light. To the point where we had then ARU board member John Eales as a paid panelist on the weekly programme assuring us how well things were going. During the Patston/Link/Beale affair the News Ltd papers were held up on these threads as providing sensible coverage while Fairfax and Georgina Robinson in particular were accused of trying to destroy the came for their own commercial purposes.

Let's be clear - all large commercial media companies enter into any agreement to make the most possible money for the company and the shareholders. They have no duty to prop up the game or to protect it from the ineptitude of its own administration, they will do so only when it suits their commercial purpose. It's fanciful to think that Optus would have any less commercial imperatives than Fox. It's also fanciful to think that FTA networks are any better. We only have to look at the NRL where Channel 9 and the Fairfax papers ran a campaign against their CEO Todd Greenberg which was just as relentless as what Castle faced. 9 have barely hidden their desire to drive down the value of NRL broadcast rights so that they can pay less for the next deal.

Pro-rugby has failed in Australia because the administration have never deviated from the pan-continental super rugby model. Even when faced with growing evidence that it wasn't working in Australia, they put their heads down and ploughed on regardless. No change of direction when crowds dropped by 60% or the standard of our teams dropped. Refusal to adapt means death in the commercial world.

Rugby has nobody to blame for our current predicament other than ourselves. And it's not until the game and those running it acknowledge that and rule a line under the whole sorry mess and starting again that there is even a hope of turning it around. We're the laughing stock of the rugby world and trying to deflect the blame onto others just doesn't cut it.

What's even worse is that this whole sorry shambles has been both foreseen and foreseeable. There's been quite a few people predicting this for a decade or more. Coronavirus has just created the perfect storm for it all to come crashing down.

Very well articulated and all the available evidence of the last 10-15 years of ARU/RA's, and the local RUs', conduct, MOs and measurable outcomes supports this explanation's validity.

It's perfectly clear that Voluntary Administration (VA) would be by far the best next step for RA. As it is today, it cannot and will not heal itself. Other than the brand new directors, the RA board today is palpably driven by professional ego alone.

Any WR (World Rugby) 'loan' or advance will only be wasted within the current RA MO format and go towards merely propping up an entity that is incapable of disbursing c. $16m sensibly and in the interests of a coherent, credible code resurrection process.

A VA process will legally permit the required radical reconstruction of the entire Aust rugby governance system and its toxic legacies, the full departure of the current RA board, all coupled with a massive reduction in creditor obligations thus allowing positive new forms of code ownership and governance to emerge.

 

[RedsHappy]

That is massively concerning if true.

It's bottom of the barrel irrelevant is what it is. All journos covering controversial subject matters are 'fed stories' by parties with interests in the matter, neighbours or otherwise, that's how they write much of their material and, in truth, part of the reason we read them.

(A btw: What I personally quite like re Jessica H is that, unlike GeoRob and Wayne Smith, her MO is not mostly the pure recycling of RA's preferred story lines bundled up with the strong implication that lazily sitting around waiting for the feeder call from the RA Chair or CEO is their essential, or at least principal, source of content.)

 

[RedsHappy]

^ then on the other hand you've got NZR Chairman Brent Impey talking up the Trans Tasman relationship at every opportunity (tbf he also talks up the NZ-SA relationship just as much) so maybe RA isn't seen as a basket case by those actually running the joint. Hard to say but I guess we'll find out in the fullness of time. FWIW if Super Rugby can't be salvaged my next option would be Trans Tasman & bringing at least Fiji & in due course a Polynesian entity, perhaps a Samoa/ Tonga JV based in Auckland or Western Sydney.

In this context I think we must make distinctions: one thing is NZR agreeing to participate year by year in some kind of trans-Tasman pro team comp that entails only a limited financial exposure for NZR to the fortunes of Aust rugby, it's another entirely for NZR to contemplate some kind of much deeper financial or organisational tie-up with RA that could directly or indirectly tether NZR to an organisation here on the cusp or bankruptcy or about to become actually bankrupt.

Two entirely different degrees of exposure, and perhaps why different parts of NZR can speak in different ways re its different types of potential relationship - or not - with Aust rugby/RA.

 

[Quick Hands]

Optus has hosed down suggestions it was close to signing a broadcast deal with Rugby Australia (RA) before coronavirus hit, and gave the code more bad news by saying it won’t be looking to acquire local sports rights in the short term.

However, Optus Director of Sport Richard Bayliss said on Friday he doesn’t believe the two parties were as close as people think to inking a deal before COVID-19 struck.​

He also said he can’t see Optus, which broadcasts the English Premier League and recently acquired the rights to the Korean K-League, looking to move into any Australian sports in the near future.​

“It’s hard to almost look at that now given what’s happened in rugby since. I think the speculation was out there (about signing a deal with RA) but, to be honest, we weren’t particularly close, nor was it going to happen given COVID,” Bayliss said on the Big Sports Breakfast radio show.​

“Once that popped up, all bets were off. To be honest, we were focusing on football, that’s been our No. 1 sport — our only sport for the last couple of years. And whilst we’d like to go into different sports at some point, I don’t think it was particularly close.​

​

“Once COVID came along as well, it meant we had to bunker down and focus on our subscribers and keeping people employed, for a start.​

“And who knows what will happen in the future, but certainly in the short term there’s not much chance of us adding any major Australian rights.”​

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/s...s/news-story/8914e09a04824d9070064a1b140401a2​

 

[Quick Hands]

In this context I think we must make distinctions: one thing is NZR agreeing to participate year by year in some kind of trans-Tasman pro team comp that entails only a limited financial exposure for NZR to the fortunes of Aust rugby, it's another entirely for NZR to contemplate some kind of much deeper financial or organisational tie-up with RA that could directly or indirectly tether NZR to an organisation here on the cusp or bankruptcy or about to become actually bankrupt.

Two entirely different degrees of exposure, and perhaps why different parts of NZR can speak in different ways re its different types of potential relationship - or not - with Aust rugby/RA.

It's hard to imagine anybody entering into any binding agreement with RA, either long or short term.

 

[The Nomad]

So providers like Fox Sport and Optus need sport of some form to have subscribers willing to part with their hard earned.

NZ and Australia could well be the first to have pro rugby back up and running regardless of the clusterfuck that Is RA.

NZ’s financials don’t look brilliant either with reports of a 7.something million dollar loss for 2019 , again RWC year and all.

Surly there are some needs all round ?

 

[Quick Hands]

So providers like Fox Sport and Optus need sport of some form to have subscribers willing to part with their hard earned.

NZ and Australia could well be the first to have pro rugby back up and running regardless of the clusterfuck that Is RA.

NZ’s financials don’t look brilliant either with reports of a 7.something million dollar loss for 2019 , again RWC year and all.

Surly there are some needs all round ?

They need sport, but they're being more selective about what they buy and how much they pay for it as their own financial issues bight.

Most sports will receive less in real terms for their content as we move forward.

 

[Quick Hands]

And then f____k me, I click on this in the SMH, is the penny finally dropping, good old Georgina Robinson. Seriously its not fucking Rocket Science.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...-rugby-s-future-is-local-20200508-p54r97.html

What will eventually happen is the there will be the Wallabies, a domestic professional competition, state-based capital city competitions and local/regional/subbies social rugby.

This is not what the current administrators want - they want a continuation of the status quo and it's only economic reality which will get them to change.

In at least the short term that is going to mean less money available for domestic professional players and the top talent will head to Europe. But in all likelihood even if Super Rugby continues there will be a loss in wages for the players. The only difference being a domestic league has a chance of growth and long term there may well be more money there. There's next to no chance of Super Rugby delivering that long term.

 

[Slim 293]

And then f____k me, I click on this in the SMH, is the penny finally dropping, good old Georgina Robinson. Seriously its not fucking Rocket Science.

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/rugby-...-rugby-s-future-is-local-20200508-p54r97.html

There's a discussion going on in the other thread, but it's a fairly shoddy article......... the data seems to support a trans tasman competition, and not a national club competition which would not be viable and lead to the death of professional rugby in this country.

 

[hoggy]

There's a discussion going on in the other thread, but it's a fairly shoddy article... the data seems to support a trans tasman competition, and not a national club competition which would not be viable and lead to the death of professional rugby in this country.

Yes apparently now the data in that article is just plain shoddy, not that any evidence of that was put forward. The article highlighted a possible way forward obviously no tweaking of that direction can ever occur.

I just find it strange how expectations of the wallabies are to be regularly No 1-2 in the world and win regular world cups, yet talk of a domestic structure in this country is met with nothing short of complete dismissal.

 

[Slim 293]

Well, I certainly wasn’t being dismissive of a domestic structure........... only the domestic club model proposed.

And I didn’t say the data was shoddy either............

But they’re a thread for this conversation.........

 

[KOB1987]

It's bottom of the barrel irrelevant is what it is. All journos covering controversial subject matters are 'fed stories' by parties with interests in the matter, neighbours or otherwise, that's how they write much of their material and, in truth, part of the reason we read them.

(A btw: What I personally quite like re Jessica H is that, unlike GeoRob and Wayne Smith, her MO is not mostly the pure recycling of RA's preferred story lines bundled up with the strong implication that lazily sitting around waiting for the feeder call from the RA Chair or CEO is their essential, or at least principal, source of content.)

I pretty much agree with everything you are are saying and I also like the stuff the things she’s been covering. It’s not her content that’s the issue, what I’m referring to with regards to it being concerning is that she’s quoting, seemingly word for word, a confidential email chain between two RA board members. And I don’t even care that she’s covering it, in fact I like it, but even if all the board members were copied into the conversation, Harrison isn’t on said board, so hows he getting it? My concern is the leaks from the RA board, not Jessica.

 

[RugbyFuture]

I'd like to see the clubbies even trying to run anything at a prof level. Would be a disaster. Not to say the people running state do much different except with leather backed chairs.