Declining participation and ARU plans for the future

[Rugbynutter39]

Why so negative????

We have a 60 million contract, lets assume the split between National and Super teams is 15 / 45. TBH I think it would be closer to 20 / 40 or 25/ 35 but being ultra conservative lets say 15 / 45.

Lets assume a net cost savings - increase wages comes in about equal.

Meaning we have a 45 million dollar contract and revenue to replace.

Lets play out of smaller and cheaper stadiums and have 10 teams, so roughly 100 games.

Revenue from crowds, shirt sales and IMO say a 12 million dollar media deal. FFS even the A-League got 17 million in their second year .

12 million made up of Fox 10 million and a FTA station 2 million. Please tell in in todays media climate that is a hard sell.

So 45 million less 12 million is 33 million. Lets assume and again being very conservative we have an extra 600, 000 people through the gate at $ 30.00 each thats 18 million.

So 33 million less 18 million is 15 million.

Increase in shirt sales, some new sponsors for the new teams say another 5 million.

The difference is at most 10 million and that is being very conservative.

Why and what are we so scared of. FFS sake have some faith in our game people.

As I posted above lets see what FFA get solely for a 10 team A-League that rates slightly below rugby matches played in Australia and that is our measuring stick.

Ok here is the deal let's pay a consultancy to prepare a business plan and feasibility study on how a domestic comp would work - consult major financial backers eg sponsors and foxsports etc to see if any interest - let's pull together a blueprint for this and roadmap how could be rolled out

Oh that's right aru would struggle to accomodate the consultancy bill as we are so broke. Hence back to square 1.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Braveheart81]

What about the cost of running 5 additional teams?

 

[Train Without a Station]

The fact that the ARU grants $5M per team for salaries would mean unless we plan to lose almost all current players, they are paying an extra $25M PA.

Then there's the fact that with more teams, they need to bail out teams more frequently (The NRL and AFL still have this issue).

Then there's the fact that the smaller grounds are offset by smaller profits in times off success.

The Reds for example would be much worse off had they stayed at Ballymore as they would have made much less on games and memberships from 2010-2014.

Then there's the fact that the increase in gate takings does not go to the ARU. That is the franchises' only area they can maximize their profit besides sponsorship.

Then there's the fact that there's no reason to believe there will be any net increase in anything for the first 5 years, but more so re-allocation of existing fans from the past 5 years.

So really it's a lot more than $10M down to begin with. It's actually about $16M plus the extra $25M per year in salaries.

Then there's the fact that if it was this easy, it would have been done before.

 

[half]

What about the cost of running 5 additional teams?

Mate, I kinda give up, massive savings will be made to the existing cost base, with no overseas travel and accommodation. Massive saving can be made by playing out of smaller stadiums.

Increase costs will be additional players. If we are smart we take the existing 5 Super teams and add a Western Sydney team, a combined Hunter / Newcastle / Central coast team, a second Brisbane team, a Northern Districts of Sydney team, a Southern Districts of Sydney team. This would structure would greatly reduce operating costs especially travel.

These teams would also have crowd revenue and sponsors.

However I doubt it can happen as people want iron cast guarantees revenue will be there etc.

I have a bigger concern about revenue, what happens if SA rating fall as the quota system kicks in and say our ratings fall, - - !!!! what happens then .

The assumption the existing pathway has a greater certainty to it than having a national domestic model ready to go is IMO the greater of the two risks.

Have some faith in the game

 

[half]

TWAS

Assuming your right on the costs. Other than more of the same do you have any alternative ideas.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

What about the cost of running 5 additional teams?

It wouldn't need to be 5 new teams. If they were to go this route you use the Rebels, Brumbies and Force brands while having NSW keep their NRC split. Revert the Tahs amd Reds back to true representive teams. Add in the mooted Fiji squad and you have 9 teams. So one more.

For this to even be seriously considered we need to know how the change would effect the ratings and crpwds or at least a projection. Would also need to know the value attached to domestic games as opposed to NZ and SA games. How much is each game worth. Do we currently get paid for just the games broadcast by Foxsports or all of Super Rugby etc.

It would be safe to assume it would take at least double what we currently have.

 

[Braveheart81]

Mate, I kinda give up, massive savings will be made to the existing cost base, with no overseas travel and accommodation. Massive saving can be made by playing out of smaller stadiums.

Increase costs will be additional players. If we are smart we take the existing 5 Super teams and add a Western Sydney team, a combined Hunter / Newcastle / Central coast team, a second Brisbane team, a Northern Districts of Sydney team, a Southern Districts of Sydney team. This would structure would greatly reduce operating costs especially travel.

These teams would also have crowd revenue and sponsors.

However I doubt it can happen as people want iron cast guarantees revenue will be there etc.

I have a bigger concern about revenue, what happens if SA rating fall as the quota system kicks in and say our ratings fall, - - !!!! what happens then .

The assumption the existing pathway has a greater certainty to it than having a national domestic model ready to go is IMO the greater of the two risks.

Have some faith in the game

I have plenty of faith in the game. Analysing the issue and coming up with problems doesn't negate that.

Teams with sufficient pulling power get paid by stadiums. The Waratahs deal with Allianz is worth about $1 million a year to them. Moving to a suburban stadium would cost the Waratahs money for example.

SANZAAR has airline deals in place. I don't know what the annual costs are but these are heavily subsidised through those sponsorship arrangements.

It wouldn't need to be 5 new teams. If they were to go this route you use the Rebels, Brumbies and Force brands while having NSW keep their NRC split. Revert the Tahs amd Reds back to true representive teams. Add in the mooted Fiji squad and you have 9 teams. So one more.

For this to even be seriously considered we need to know how the change would effect the ratings and crpwds or at least a projection. Would also need to know the value attached to domestic games as opposed to NZ and SA games. How much is each game worth. Do we currently get paid for just the games broadcast by Foxsports or all of Super Rugby etc.

It would be safe to assume it would take at least double what we currently have.

The NRC only players are being paid peanuts though. If you were replacing Super Rugby you would essentially need to double the playing base and you'd have to assume that the salary requirements per team would remain similar.

Would you really not use the Waratahs and the Reds if we moved to a domestic competition? They are the two best domestic rugby brands in Australia. The biggest challenge of growing a new competition (as we are witnessing with the NRC) is growing a fanbase for a new team. It would be absolutely crazy in my view not to use those teams if this was the route chosen.

 

[Highlander35]

Would you really not use the Waratahs and the Reds if we moved to a domestic competition? They are the two best domestic rugby brands in Australia. The biggest challenge of growing a new competition (as we are witnessing with the NRC) is growing a fanbase for a new team. It would be absolutely crazy in my view not to use those teams if this was the route chosen.

I think you almost couldn't afford to do otherwise. Almost any other team in either state would struggle to make any inroads commercially.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

The fact that the ARU grants $5M per team for salaries would mean unless we plan to lose almost all current players, they are paying an extra $25M PA.

Then there's the fact that with more teams, they need to bail out teams more frequently (The NRL and AFL still have this issue).

Then there's the fact that the smaller grounds are offset by smaller profits in times off success.

The Reds for example would be much worse off had they stayed at Ballymore as they would have made much less on games and memberships from 2010-2014.

Then there's the fact that the increase in gate takings does not go to the ARU. That is the franchises' only area they can maximize their profit besides sponsorship.

Then there's the fact that there's no reason to believe there will be any net increase in anything for the first 5 years, but more so re-allocation of existing fans from the past 5 years.

So really it's a lot more than $10M down to begin with. It's actually about $16M plus the extra $25M per year in salaries.

Then there's the fact that if it was this easy, it would have been done before.

Got to change all the product feature set and appeal to support more teams

It takes bloody innovation and doing things which would generate more appeal

And no it is about changing many variables as many of those variable interconnected

Hence it would take a clear business and marketing plan with strong financial model with backing by key financial stakeholders and vested interests.

Sometimes by being part of an international game limits innovation at domestic level - something afl and league to less extent don't suffer from.

But even a-league as part of big world game found ways to be innovative to grow their game

Innovate or die as latter become real for rugby and improving but starting from
Very low base.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[half]

Nutter

Please go to the head of the class, INNOVATION.

Your A-League example is perfect.

I am so sick and tied of being bettered in the board room.

Where is our YOSHI, I guess most have no idea who Yoshi is, he is a 10 year old Asian boy who is the key to the A-League launch this year.

From News on who Yoshi is, why can't we develop social media product like this its so clever and that word innovative.

He’s the face of the new advertising campaign for the A-League, which kicks off on Friday night when Brisbane Roar host Melbourne Victory.
The campaign “You’ve gotta have a team” is aimed at attracting some of the two million Australians who participate in or support overseas football clubs, but don’t have an A-League team.
In the campaign, Yoshi visits all 10 A-League clubs as they make pitches for his support.
Basically it’s after kids who play football on the weekend, but may support an AFL or NRL team rather than the local A-League side.
Or the football fans getting up in the middle of the night to watch Manchester United or Real Madrid but turn their noses up at the local league.
“Our challenge is to unite the two million people who have expressed their passion and love for football as a player, coach, referee, parent, son, daughter, supporter, administrator or fan and engrain them into the Hyundai A-League so they can enjoy the unique atmosphere that can only be felt inside the stadium on matchday,” FFA chief executive David Gallop said.

 

[Train Without a Station]

But what has that success of the A League resulted in? Despite more local product it has a lower TV deal and still gets mostly lesser ratings.

A huge factor is private investment propping up some teams.

That leaves little money for FFA to invest in lower levels.

If Rugby went domestic and in 10 years got the results the A League gets now it would be a failure and send them to the wall.

 

[barbarian]

I've said it before TWAS, but the success of the A-League is ridiculously overstated on these boards.

Sydney FC is one of the marquee clubs, and has done pretty well on the field for the last five years. They proudly announced recently that last year they 'only lost $1.5 million', where four years ago they were losing around $8 million.
.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

But what has that success of the A League resulted in? Despite more local product it has a lower TV deal and still gets mostly lesser ratings.

A huge factor is private investment propping up some teams.

That leaves little money for FFA to invest in lower levels.

If Rugby went domestic and in 10 years got the results the A League gets now it would be a failure and send them to the wall.

Err ''twas - look at recent trends and where soccer was say 10 years ago to now cf rugby - you are really missing some key points here imo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Quick Hands]

Err ''twas - look at recent trends and where soccer was say 10 years ago to now cf rugby - you are really missing some key points here imo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's a fair point. AFL, league, soccer, cricket and netball are all trending up. They've either invented new formats or new competitions or extended their appeal and are slowly closing down the space in which we can operate. In addition to which, the first four are going hell for leather to establish nationside women's leagues to exapnd their reach even further.

Even a sport like wter polo has a national league involving 12 mens teams and 12 womens teams. Covering the whole of the country (except Tas & NT)
5 x Sydney teams, 2 x Qld, 2 x WA, Adelaide, Newcastle & Victoria)

http://waterpoloaustralia.com.au/nwpl/

The NRC is a good start - I think it needs to be our main vehicle for the code moving forward and be played during the winter season and not now when most media oxygen is sucked up by AFL and NRL finals. I realise that they wanted to mirror Currie Cup and Mitre 10 Cup - but SA and NZ just don't have the competition from league and Aussie Rules that we do.

 

[barbarian]

Err ''twas - look at recent trends and where soccer was say 10 years ago to now cf rugby - you are really missing some key points here imo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Soccer 10 years ago? Well they were coming off an incredibly successful World Cup campaign. They had the best Socceroos side ever assembled, with a handful of truly international class marquee players - Kewell, Viduka, Cahill, Schwarzer, Bresciano, Neill.

They launched the A-League to huge success, with Dwight Yorke leading Sydney FC to victory. Sydney FC averaged a crowd of 19,648, the lowest attendance figure was around 9,000. The competition average crowd was around 12,000.

Now the Socceroos are still a formidable side, but doesn't have nearly the amount of internationally renowned players. Their marketing rests on the shoulders of an ageing Tim Cahill, and they struggle to pull crowds to domestic games (the recent Greece friendly is a case in point, only attracting around 30k).

The A-League? Without marquee players it is struggling for mainstream attention. Sydney FC averaged a crowd of a little over 16,000, less than in 2005-6. The league average was 12,706, around 700 greater than the average crowd for season 05-06.

So I'm not sure the basis of the 'soccer is booming' narrative. Yes it dominates at the participation level, but it always has.
.

 

[I like to watch]

You keep quoting Sydney FC, what about western Sydney or whatever they call them.
Aren't they selling out every week?
My perception is that they are going gang busters

 

[barbarian]

Wanderers average crowd last year was 14,711, up from 12,520 the year before. But they hit their peak in 2013-14 with an average of 15,171.

Their home ground has a capacity of around 22,000.

I am getting my info here: http://www.ultimatealeague.com/records.php?type=att&season=2013-14

I don't have anything against the A-League at all. I just want to correct the misconception that it's exploding in popularity, leaving Rugby in its wake. That's just not the case, and the code is broadly facing similar challenges to rugby.
.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Wanderers average crowd last year was 14,711, up from 12,520 the year before. But they hit their peak in 2013-14 with an average of 15,171.

Their home ground has a capacity of around 22,000.

I am getting my info here: http://www.ultimatealeague.com/records.php?type=att&season=2013-14

I don't have anything against the A-League at all. I just want to correct the misconception that it's exploding in popularity, leaving Rugby in its wake. That's just not the case, and the code is broadly facing similar challenges to rugby.
.

So a professional national a-league was established from old nsl days with how many teams, crowds and tv audience compared to old nsl days. And in recent years platea'd

I think rugby would kill to be in a- league's position to have at least successfully grown a viable national professional domestic league first then worry about it starting to dwindle from a higher base.

Wtf is unions big success - creating 5 super rugby sides with one in each state.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rugbynutter39]

I've said it before TWAS, but the success of the A-League is ridiculously overstated on these boards.

Sydney FC is one of the marquee clubs, and has done pretty well on the field for the last five years. They proudly announced recently that last year they 'only lost $1.5 million', where four years ago they were losing around $8 million.
.

National footprint and fan base for domestic league for how many teams playing in a national comp. I think rugby would kill to have that as a starting point. And how many schools including private schools now offer soccer. You got to be kidding me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[I like to watch]

Wanderers average crowd last year was 14,711, up from 12,520 the year before. But they hit their peak in 2013-14 with an average of 15,171.

Their home ground has a capacity of around 22,000.

I am getting my info here: http://www.ultimatealeague.com/records.php?type=att&season=2013-14

I don't have anything against the A-League at all. I just want to correct the misconception that it's exploding in popularity, leaving Rugby in its wake. That's just not the case, and the code is broadly facing similar challenges to rugby.
.

That's really interesting.
Not so much as the numbers, but my perception ( which comes totally from absent mindedly watching the TV news) is so much different to the actual facts.
......Which probably explains why politicians have reduced policies to sound bites