Declining participation and ARU plans for the future

[WorkingClassRugger]

Yes very impressive, but it's not a community facility, it's not an academy facility, it's a high performance facility aimed at developing the one team..

If we want to talk participation rates and academies to improve the grassroots level then you don't need 90% of that stuff, there is talk of the ARU opening an academy in Western Sydney, what would they need? 2 or 3 floodlit ovals, a gym, canteen and change room? But more importantly it would have staff and coaches to run the programs and engage with local schools and teams.

Agreed. I brought the Oregon facility up to put the Melb City development into perspective. These facilities are flashy and all but they really do very little for the community game. The academy in Western Sydney sounds interesting.

 

[half]

Working Class Rugger

I acknowledged when I posted the Melbourne City vid, they had heaps of money from overseas. My point was more to look at the connections they are making and what appeared to be a first class management team.

I also posted that Penrith had built a 22 million dollar academy, and three more are planned in western Sydney, That both the Sydney A-League teams plan to build academies. That the AFL is constantly running courses.

This has an effect on kids.

I grew up in western Sydney, married moved overseas, when I came back I moved to Epping and about four years ago moved my accounting practice to the Central Coast. So I have seen sport all around me and what I have seen in the last especially say 5 to 8 years is very aggressive growth plans by the AFL, Soccer and more recently RL, and now Netball.

We are in competition with these other sports for the best juniors and we are being beaten. Not because of the game but simply we not competitive at running junior competitions.

Working, your post yesterday got me thinking how can a sh**ty little club constantly broke like the Mariners build a 100 million dollar training facility of which they are somewhere between 65 & 70 % complete I am told.

I asked a client who is a hard core rusted on Mariner fan to explain how they managed to build the F***ker when they have no money.

25 million I am told is funding from the Commonwealth and local councils, 20 million from the feds and 5 the council. They paid mates rates to the local RSL for the land. Some capital and some borrowings.

They also had people build stuff on the land for their own and Mariner use.

Also all A-League clubs and they have smaller budgets than the Super Rugby teams from last year or this year I am not sure will run teams in their academies from u9 to U 16 and after that they can join A-League youth league.

I am sure RL teams have similar.

Also Frank Lowy is a big liar, he told the world it was a new league a break from the past. That was all BS, Perth, Adelaide, the NZ side, Newcastle, Brisbane, were essentially the NSL teams he wanted to keep and the Mariners just moved from North Sydney, the only new teams were SFC and Melbourne Victory. So we are being played for fools by everyone.

Look I ma getting a little carried away maybe its the wine and old age, but its not only players its the quality of players and the AFL see us as a soft touch especially in Eastern Sydney, North Sydney and in Western Sydney.

RL is also under some pressure and I do sometimes wonder if combined academies could be a good idea as they look at our rep teams and raid them anyway so why not if everyone's in agreement we don't build some join rugby academies.

Time for bed and go the Woodies, and lets sign Hayne for the reds they need help.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Working Class Rugger

I acknowledged when I posted the Melbourne City vid, they had heaps of money from overseas. My point was more to look at the connections they are making and what appeared to be a first class management team.

I also posted that Penrith had built a 22 million dollar academy, and three more are planned in western Sydney, That both the Sydney A-League teams plan to build academies. That the AFL is constantly running courses.

This has an effect on kids.

I grew up in western Sydney, married moved overseas, when I came back I moved to Epping and about four years ago moved my accounting practice to the Central Coast. So I have seen sport all around me and what I have seen in the last especially say 5 to 8 years is very aggressive growth plans by the AFL, Soccer and more recently RL, and now Netball.

We are in competition with these other sports for the best juniors and we are being beaten. Not because of the game but simply we not competitive at running junior competitions.

Working, your post yesterday got me thinking how can a sh**ty little club constantly broke like the Mariners build a 100 million dollar training facility of which they are somewhere between 65 & 70 % complete I am told.

I asked a client who is a hard core rusted on Mariner fan to explain how they managed to build the F***ker when they have no money.

25 million I am told is funding from the Commonwealth and local councils, 20 million from the feds and 5 the council. They paid mates rates to the local RSL for the land. Some capital and some borrowings.

They also had people build stuff on the land for their own and Mariner use.

Also all A-League clubs and they have smaller budgets than the Super Rugby teams from last year or this year I am not sure will run teams in their academies from u9 to U 16 and after that they can join A-League youth league.

I am sure RL teams have similar.

Also Frank Lowy is a big liar, he told the world it was a new league a break from the past. That was all BS, Perth, Adelaide, the NZ side, Newcastle, Brisbane, were essentially the NSL teams he wanted to keep and the Mariners just moved from North Sydney, the only new teams were SFC and Melbourne Victory. So we are being played for fools by everyone.

Look I ma getting a little carried away maybe its the wine and old age, but its not only players its the quality of players and the AFL see us as a soft touch especially in Eastern Sydney, North Sydney and in Western Sydney.

RL is also under some pressure and I do sometimes wonder if combined academies could be a good idea as they look at our rep teams and raid them anyway so why not if everyone's in agreement we don't build some join rugby academies.

Time for bed and go the Woodies, and lets sign Hayne for the reds they need help.

Mate, I'm from out Campbelltown way. I know what we're up against in terms of competition for hearts and minds. But, focusing on the development of these facilities that either largey don't or clearly won't benefit anyone else apart from these individual professional clubs achieves nothing. All five of the Super Rugby franchises already operate out of similar set ups. What the likes of the Panthers, Melb City and the Mariners have done isn't exactly ground breaking.

I will agree with you on the continuity of development it allows them and that thhe ARU needs to look to continue to build their own. Which with the advent of both the JGC and Super U20s I think they are at the very least working toward this. Additionally, the recent announcement of they move to introduce a professional womens (2017) and then mens (2018) Sevens circuit centred around Universities could provide the game with another vital piece of the puzzle. Via these arrangements the ARU could establish regional academies and bring the llikes of the JGC etc. under these programs.

However, I think you ,ay be focusing on the weong issue here. While have strong, clear and efficient development pathways in place are improtant what Rugby needs is both blindingly obvious and at the same time staggering in its challenge. And that is more people, particularly kids playing the game. That is probably the main overriding priority of the ARU.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Just commented on 7's thread which realised goes to heart of identifying current strategic weaknesses in growing our game.

As a lot about building a brand is attracting (and retaining) talent with high profiles. But also just about star rugby players but star administrators, star coaches - and all of this at all levels. And this is looking outside rugby which is what other successful codes in oz and overseas have been outstanding in and where rugby has been weak. I see nothing in the strategy addressing this. Or maybe I missed this.

Also about attracting those to rugby on different appeals / soundbites for attracting different audiences- okay lot about this.

What also about key partnerships with corporates, other key strategic partnerships e.g. tourism Australia. As need to leverage key strategic partnerships and those with access to wider potential interested participants or have skills to help reach out to participants. Again where see strategy not addressed any of this.

Anyhow my quick weekend reflective 30 second sound bite on this.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Posted this on sevens Hayne's discussion thread below - but does go to heart of about innovative game changing strategies to grow the game which is where the strategy imo is very ho hum....So hence also posted this below as goes to heart of where my previous points directed at around weaknesses of strategy blueprint
----------------------------------------------------------
Or actually TOCC to highlight my point - A-League marquee strategy was to bring in high profile aged European players and pay them many millions despite knowing they would never represent Australia.

Huge success in growing A-League, so why could not the same be applied for getting Hayne to grow Super Rugby. And why could it not be equally a success.

Nope I still believe the thinking needs to change here as A-League showed such thinking can be successful.

 

[half]

Working Class Rugger out Campbelltown way, the forgotten lands as rugby seems to increasingly shrink. I feel for you and the issues you highlight.

Rugbynutter you almost have me declared insane again, I will resist the urge to re write my solution.

However Nutter let me say this IMO rugby has two general groups. They are the old farts and the revolutionaries

The first the old farts is those who see rugby through the success of the Wallabies and then being competitive in Super Rugby, private schools, and the need to have the best possible Australian players in Australia.

The revolutionaries, which I am one and acknowledge we are in number and influence the very minor group. But the revolutionaries believe in having faith in the game and essentially starting a national domestic competition and have this as the single most important part of rugby in Australia.

Alas copying success in other codes is never considered.

 

[wamberal]

Half, I admire your optimism.



I am coming to the view that we would be better off with three Soup franchises. Australian sporting fans love winners. We are now losing good players to Europe at a fierce rate.



Results this weekend are just pathetic. Who wants to watch these sorts of hidings?

I love the game. We now record everything before we watch it, if it is close game (or a win, of course) we watch it.

Frankly the Shute Shield is better to watch. At least it is competitive.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Yes my problem is there are too many old farts living in the old rah rah private school world and amateur ere that think we can just take our time to develop school talent alone and (FOR EXAMPLE ONLY) we don't need to look at poaching high profile league players with high profiles as we have so much talented high profile players already (really - so I guess that is why we lost to England 3-0 and seen most of Oz Super Rugby sides whipped this weekend).

For sure we need to build a better pipeline at school boy level but rugby will be down feven further on the pecking order if we rely on that strategy alone as that will take many years to bed down success with that strategy and with a very slow burn and hard slog. We need to attract a new breed of fans now with high profile players that will attract fans outside of traditional fan base ie those peripheral watchers of rugby or those who will watch union to see those high profile athletes they may have watched play for their league team or represent their pacific nation of birth for e.g. This will then help generate more interest at schoolboy level in being interested in the game to see such high profile athletes and lead to increase participation etc.

We seem to have a lot of the we don't need to change anything - and token strategies but poorly executed - as fact is you need a catalyst for change to market the game to the wider public and public want to see high profile athletes that are household names. But seem to get in the case of the old fart rah rah's they have not got the gist league is way bigger and has more fans and we lose a lot of quality union schoolboys or pacific islanders with union background to League. But what is also not accepted is there is also enough cross over between league and union where we can attract more league fans who watch multiple sports and will watch union games if given right catalyst. We need to attract the publics interest and their are many on the peripheral who are interested in high profile athletes that are in the media.

I disagree that we have an abundance of high profile stars in Super rugby to really attract a strong interest as current state of Super Rugby play goes. I mean if Folau was to go from the Tahs for example who are we left with in terms of exciting high profile backs that would spark wider public interest. As sorry reality is players like Foley, Phipps, Horne don't capture wider public imagination beyond the union diehards. AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) and Beale might have fallen into the Folau camp in terms of profile but they are gone. And rugby needs to grow not just maintain the status quo so that means attracting new fans outside of just the private schools.

Any how enough of my rant. Yep I am in the minor revolutionary group as rugby is the fourth football code in this country and struggling and that is more because of poor administrators and lack of visionaries compared to other football codes - AFL and A-League in particular. I am sure however we will hear the usual excuses or constraints rather than solutions as those live in denial of how rugby is struggling against onslaught of other codes. But that said I also am passionate to see change as think rugby is a great game but just badly marketed and lacks the innovation from Oz Rugby administration to the other codes do in this country. A-League emerged from not much in this country with the old NSL and now the third football code ahead of rugby. Yet rather than follow their example with seeking to follow their innovative path (and having the attitude if they can do something revolutionary to grow the game so can we) again we will here instead but oh no rugby is different and the A-League you can't compare because of xyz. Continuing to give excuses won't do much to solve the current problems as too much excuses given on how rugby is different etc etc and that includes not enough solutions including by many rugby commentators in the media who fall into the old school camp.

We need a visionary - and whilst think Bill Pulver done a good job to improve things compared to his predecessors I don't think he is the visionary to lead rugby to the holy grail in this country.

 

[Tip]

Half, I admire your optimism.



I am coming to the view that we would be better off with three Soup franchises. Australian sporting fans love winners. We are now losing good players to Europe at a fierce rate.

I've come to the view that Super Rugby is a disaster and it's only reincarnation should be in a Heiniken Cup format.

I used to think that we should just ditch South Africa and go ANZ, but tbh, we suck. I don't want to see 35 point dickings every week by NZ sides.

We're going the route of Death by 1000 cuts. Lets put us all out of our misery and focus on what the reincarnation may be.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I believe actually having only 3 professional rugby sides would be the worse possible solution.

However, I would say probably having only one professional side in each state is equally a problem (from a long term perspective). Maybe that is the real problem here.

We know we don't have the depth of NZ and hence struggle against them but as do most of the South African sides. Lets just accept NZ has greater depth but why should we compare ourselves to another country to decide we need less professional sides. I mean league in Oz has lots of professional club sides compared to NZ which has err 1 professional NZ league side competing in the ARL and yet are the world champions in league over last few years or there abouts. If we want to grow the game in Oz surely we need more professional sides in oz to provide pathways and why would we compare ourselves to NZ. Is it not we want to compare to league in our own country and AFL and A-League which all have many more professional sides than Rugby and hence offers great professional opportunities for elite athletes to play their code compared to rugby. Is that not the problem? So why make it worse? Talented sporting kids who have the desire matched by the skill and passion to play a football code as a profession are more likely to choose a code that offers the right opportunities and given similarities of league and union more likely to go to league if offers more opportunities and not whether they would face better NZ rugby sides.

I don't think the solution is less professional sides as a smaller pool of professional opportunities for players would do the opposite of limiting the appeal and decreasing the participation (because of less professional opportunities) and increasing even more the exodus at schoolboy level (because of limited professional opportunities) to other professional football codes (League, AFL, Soccer).

The solution rather needs to consider imo things such as:
1. how can we increase the professional opportunities for rugby to attract greater participation at schoolboy level and elite athletes to join / play our game
2. Is the current professional opportunities in rugby limited to Super Rugby the answer or have we just got the wrong structure to support the growth of our game at a professional level and hence from growing the fan ruby base
3. How can we achieve wider public appeal and rugby fan base?
3. Is the current Super Rugby Conference Model optimal. For example, if we had Japan in our conference, would this attract more interest, and say another side from Pacific Islands (Fiji might just commercially work in Super Rugby given strong sevens brand).
4. What disruptive game changing strategy could we adopt to generate wider appeal based on (for example) Administrative structure of rugby in Oz (e.g centralised vs decentralised model), Financial (e.g. marquee player model, corporate sponsorship, targeted ownership of clubs by big spending billionaires who want to own clubs for a hobby - these by the way are just illustrative off the cuff stuff and not well thought through as just to illustrate so don't take these as necessarily the idea to run with), Game format (ok good doing a lot here with 7's), target and attract high profile athletes (e.g. why did Fiji approach Hayne for 7's and not oz) , increase reach (e.g. on free to air), etc....

 

[Quick Hands]

The problems that rugby faces are systemic.

Half and Rugbynutter have highlighted the admistration issues. Until we have a club-based junior development structure which caters for both elite and social players, we're going to struggle against Tier 1 nations on a regular basis.

Same goes for coaching and development - we're in the same private school, we've always done it this was thought process.

The Aust 20s programme is a disaster - and this is where the next batch of Wallabies are. The on-field performances of the Aussie super sides this year reveal a lack of fundamental skills across the board - kicking, passing, scrummaging, lineouts and yet almost all of these guys have been in ARU elite programmes since they were in their teens. There's strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that what is going on in these programmes isn't good enough to bring players through in the professional era. Professisonal sport is results and performance based and any attempt to question elite player development is met with hostility.

 

[TOCC]

Yes my problem is there are too many old farts living in the old rah rah private school world and amateur ere that think we can just take our time to develop school talent alone and (FOR EXAMPLE ONLY) we don't need to look at poaching high profile league players with high profiles as we have so much talented high profile players already (really - so I guess that is why we lost to England 3-0 and seen most of Oz Super Rugby sides whipped this weekend).

Funny, because i think there are too many fools living in fantasy land that think recruiting guys like Hayne, Tuiqir, Sailor, Rogers, Hunt, Tahu, Walker, Blacklock, Burgess is the solution to the declining participation rates of juniors, that signing unproven players on $1million contracts is going to stop what happened the Australian sides this weekend from occurring. It's this top-down approach to rugby development that people like John O'Neill instilled in Australian Rugby that has undermined the code and left it floundering behind all the other summer codes and left Australian Rugby at risk of completely losing pace with the All Blacks.

How about Australian Rugby spends some of the that $1million you are proposing be spent on Hayne and instead direct it at retaining some dozens of the Schoolboys players we lose every single year. You only need to look at this years State of Origin series, Dane Gagai a former schoolboy rugby union player scored a hat-trick, Tyson Frizzel was NSW's best player, yet rewind a few years and he was lining up alongside Liam Gill, Scott Sio and Luke Jones to tour Europe with the Australian Schoolboys.

No one is disputing the talent that Jarryd Haynes possesses, its the cost of recruiting him that people are disputing. Is $1million on a player who can never represent the Wallabies the best investment, or would it be better spent retaining players like To'omua and Pocock, we talk about the return on investment that marketability of players generate. How about the marketability of having a Wallabies team with enough depth and talent that its good enough to actually win the Bledisloe Cup.

 

[half]

TOCC

You are made king for a month and you have the power to do one of the following. Would love to know your choice.

As King you could-

A] Ensure over the next 15 years the Wallabies remain a strong national side.

B] Build and develop a new Australian only National Domestic Competition.

 

[The torpedo]

TOCC

You are made king for a month and you have the power to do one of the following. Would love to know your choice.

As King you could-

A] Ensure over the next 15 years the Wallabies remain a strong national side.

B] Build and develop a new Australian only National Domestic Competition.

I would take A

 

[Rugbynutter39]

TOCC

I think you are completely missing the point.

If spending $X on a high profile player going to bring in the people to rugby and justifies the spend on growing the game then why should this not be done. What we are saying is this generates its own return.

You that just spending that money on retaining schoolboys is the answer. I guess my point is that if a high profile player going to get more interest in rugby (increased viewer numbers etc) and generates returns and more money for the game that in itself generates the money to attract and retain schoolboys on decent money in terms of professional opportunities. If someone like Hayne does not justify being paid $x, whether that be $500k p.a or $1m because they won't generate more than sum in terms of benefits to the game from increased fan interest, financial returns then of course you should not do it. Somehow you are missing a this point I was making I think.

I just don't think you are seeing that my whole premise is if you generate greater appeal you get more fans, you get a more financial viable product which delivers more opportunities and then presents more opportunities to schoolboys at a professional level with more funds generate to retain them. As the only way they are retained is if you have a successful commercial product that generates the sort of money to retain such talent against the competing opportunities.

Chicken and egg mate and I am struggling with your logic and yes you seem to struggle with mine but we will just agree to disagree as I don't agree at all with your line of thinking or interpretation of what I am saying. But I think we may be misinterpreting the written word from both sides perhaps.

Investing in retaining schoolboys is a good long term solution but mate those schoolboys have got to have wider opportunities as with current limited market of rugby we can't retain all the schoolboys which is why a lot are being lost to league etc. Hence why I am (repeatedly) saying we need to do something to grow the pie. Sorry mate I was not having a go at you but your last post to me shows you missed my point the problem is the limited size of the pie is why we are losing talented schoolboys as not enough money to retain the talent because rugby does not have the appeal of other bigger codes like league.

Hence all my suggestions / questions are how can we change this. I am raising the questions as sure I don't have all the answers but we need people at the top levels who can.

 

[TOCC]

TOCC

You are made king for a month and you have the power to do one of the following. Would love to know your choice.

As King you could-

A] Ensure over the next 15 years the Wallabies remain a strong national side.

B] Build and develop a new Australian only National Domestic Competition.

If the ARU were somehow able to establish a National Domestic Competition which was on FTA and engaged with the fan base then i believe that could flow on to making the Wallabies a stronger national team.. But, thats easier said then done.

Super Rugby helps the Wallabies because Australian players get to play against the best players in the world, but it hurts Australian Rugby because Super Rugby doesn't engage with the fans.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

And there lies the problem.

Creating a national competition is indeed easier said than done.

I think part of the problem is unlike in SA and NZ they had a strong professional rugby base behind Super rugby with currie cup etc.

Australia didn't. So Super Rugby become only professional rugby base in OZ and hard to work backwards, which is what attempted to do in part with NRC with limited success. But early days I guess.

Has become a harder problem to solve as a result of this.

Sorting out the challenges Rugby faces in Oz is one tough nut to solve as we did not have the same solid base to work from as SA and NZ did, or indeed what top European nations like UK, France have.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

So half could the NRC be the vehicle to expand into a national domestic competition? And could this actually be a behind the scenes bit of thinking with the ARU creating this competition with a longer term vision? As your line of questioning got me thinking about long term vision they may have for NRC as at least it is a national competition.

Maybe we don't give enough credit for the ARU realising this but got to start somewhere which probably was with a shortened national domestic competition?

Thoughts?

 

[TOCC]

TOCC

I think you are completely missing the point.

If spending $X on a high profile player going to bring in the people to rugby and justifies the spend on growing the game then why should this not be done. What we are saying is this generates its own return.

You that just spending that money on retaining schoolboys is the answer. Why can't you understand that if a high profile player going to get more interest in rugby (increased viewer numbers etc). Is it really that hard to understand. If someone like Hayne does not justify being paid $x, whether that be $500k p.a or $1m because they won't generate more than sum in terms of benefits to the game from increased fan interest, financial returns then of course you should not do it. Somehow you are missing a this point I was making I think.

No, I'm not missing that point..
Im questioning the fiscal reasoning behind that point, an increase in marketability or exposure is only relevant if the organisation is able to convert that exposure into increased revenue. You can spend $millions on advertising, but that doesn't mean its going to engage with the consumer base.

Signing Hayne might give the Tahs exposure worth $1million across newspapers, but thats only relevant if that exposure transfers into an increase in crowd attendance, ratings and corporate support.

Folau joined the Tahs in 2013, yet between the 2012 and 2013 season overall revenue declined $500'000 and crowds dropped from an average of 20'000 to 16'000. It's not a simple metric of just assuming a player is going engage the fanbase and increase the revenue of the organisation by the value of his salary. Thats the point you are missing.

When you have a player like Folau is also eligible for the Wallabies, it allows Australian Rugby to further capitalise and generate a financial return through Wallabies marketing exposure, a player like Hayne, who is ineligible for the Wallabies would need to generate his 'value' purely through Super Rugby, which simply isn't going to happen.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I guess I was never assuming someone would pay Haynes $1m (your figure not mine) but rather as stated previously that he would be allowed to play in japan during off season and if makes sense we find other innovative ways to get him involved in super rugby like some corporate sponsorship or something different, but only if it made commercial sense. I guess what I have also been saying is we need to look at any opportunities for innovation here. I guess in some ways the ARU has been doing this by offer of opportunities for high profile players to play in Japan in off season like Folau and just suggesting more of the same. Irony is more I think about some things I realise maybe ARU has been behind the scenes more innovative and doing more long term planning than I appreciated (e.g. NRC perhaps formed as basis to establish and morph into long form domestic national competition long term?).

But I probably question some of your assumptions.

1. Recruitment of Folau and declining crowds. Clearly other factors at play and one could argue could it have been much worst without Folau so you can't say he did not provide a direct commercial benefit.
2. I am assuming there is direct commercial benefits - which is not just increased media coverage but rather increased viewers (better TV deals), better crowds at games, attracting other young talented sports stars who want to be the next Hayne etc which is what would need to be assessed and assuming those at higher levels would have data on to assess.
As I have stated it is about assessing the commercial benefits which are multi faceted and I don't agree with your conclusion that with Super Rugby will just never work necessarily as may be rather just the Super Rugby product is wrong. It might be that plausible sums of what Haynes would require even with opportunities to play in Japan in off season don't stack up. In that case yes don't do it.
3. Hayne can't directly compare to Folau as his NFL stint created a lot more interest than Folau playing AFL. Again up to others to way up whether this could deliver a commercial benefit. You are stating there is next to no commercial benefit. I am saying I am not so sure. But I don't know if any of this has really about Hayne but rather weighing up pro's / con's of attracting high profile athletes/marquees who could generate wider interest / commercial returns for our game. Or more to the heart of my point behind all this was doing something which would be a game changer to increase fan interest as a model. That is what we need to find is my message and sure be great if we had the answer. At this point we should agree that maybe ARU has some ideas but not confirmed strategies that will work to achieve this at this point.