Declining participation and ARU plans for the future

[Rugbynutter39]

Just one thing won't increase interest but lots of little things that move us closer to the goal..somehow this point continues to be lost on you which is incredibly frustrating. And this was just an example - but focus is instead just on the example then broader messages. All my messages have been about lots of different things they need to do to increase interest, some they are doing, and lot more need to be doing. If something along the way can be discovered that could make more rapid advancement towards this goal so be it (e.g. some rich trillionaire decides wants to establish only professional national domestic rugby comp for his or her own gratification - but seriously I don't know what that left field event could be) but otherwise we work towards this from a risk management perspective where limit financial risks involved but continue to innovate to grow and create bigger and long form national domestic professional comp that does not bankrupt ARU. This was the whole hallmark of re-establishing the NRC on a better footing after ARC debacle, but of course they need to continue to improve and grow this where this one day could be turned into a longer form professional national domestic comp.

The idea is we have to be innovative.including some nearby PI countries involvement may assist in garnering PI community interest and participation.

Big PI population in western Sydney that is not engaged in union.

At same time yes the point this competition would need to retain a dominant domestic flavour. Inclusion of PI teams should be limited and be about helping to increase PI resident interest in this country.

I don't want to go on about inclusion of Fiji in expanded NRC as this removes focus about doing innovative things across the board in terms of product, partnerships, sponsorship, marketing, financial innovation etc etc etc etc. The point is should be looking at ways to increase interest in variety of ways to work towards creating a sustainable professional long form domestic competition (ok predominantly domestic perhaps with PI countries). Inclusion of PI countries with World rugby money is addressing some of issues about risks you talk about.

Status quo can't sustain long form professional domestic competition but with innovation and good planning and roadmap can over time work towards this goal.


It is about finding solutions that get us towards this goal.

What I would hope is there is a strategic plan and roadmap layed
Out to get to a long form domestic
Professional competition such that considers in moving to that goal whether right or not to include Fiji team and hence if does not make sense to include Fiji team as part of that long term goal then they don't go down that path


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Train Without a Station]

Rugbynutter but it's all flawed logic is my point.

Why would a Fijian team generate interest? Sure it's the biggest PI so definitely the best of those options but there's only about 50,000 Fijians in Australia. Have Wallaby matches vs Fiji rated well? They certainly have not generated a great deal of attendance interest. The 2010 test between the 2 in Canberra generated one of the lowest ever Wallaby test attendances just over 15,000.

For reference the year before 22,000 people turned out to the same ground to watch Australia play Italy.

Australian Super Rugby teams currently play New Zealand teams and despite something like 650,000 New Zealand born residents, these games still do not rate well and are part of the issue of the competition gaining no interest.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Rugbynutter but it's all flawed logic is my point.

Why would a Fijian team generate interest? Sure it's the biggest PI so definitely the best of those options but there's only about 50,000 Fijians in Australia. Have Wallaby matches vs Fiji rated well? They certainly have not generated a great deal of attendance interest. The 2010 test between the 2 in Canberra generated one of the lowest ever Wallaby test attendances just over 15,000.

For reference the year before 22,000 people turned out to the same ground to watch Australia play Italy.

Australian Super Rugby teams currently play New Zealand teams and despite something like 650,000 New Zealand born residents, these games still do not rate well and are part of the issue of the competition gaining no interest.

I think there are also other strategic reasons why would want to consider including Pi teams as league has been winning the war on acquiring. Pi talent - this could be first stepping stone for helping rugby be more in the battle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Train Without a Station]

Rugbynutter,

Considering that we currently have as many players plying their trade professionally overseas, and are losing more due to higher salary offerings in Europe, shouldn't we be more focused on acquiring fans, which will result in greater revenue to pay and retain talent, rather than picking up more PI players?

The fact is that we lose PI players for the same reason we lose Anglo players. Because there are more full time professional opportunities in NRL than Super Rugby. We don't lose PI talent because of a lack of interest in playing.

Finding talent is the easy part. Finding fans is the hard part.

 

[Braveheart81]

But accepting status quo is not an option but moving towards this goal with steady jumps over time is.

There is literally no one in this thread saying we should accept the status quo and not try and change anything over time.

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Rugbynutter,

Considering that we currently have as many players plying their trade professionally overseas, and are losing more due to higher salary offerings in Europe, shouldn't we be more focused on acquiring fans, which will result in greater revenue to pay and retain talent, rather than picking up more PI players?

The fact is that we lose PI players for the same reason we lose Anglo players. Because there are more full time professional opportunities in NRL than Super Rugby. We don't lose PI talent because of a lack of interest in playing.

Finding talent is the easy part. Finding fans is the hard part.

Finding talent is easy - mate you so don't get it - fans want to see stars so you don't attract and retain the best talent how the heck do you expect to get more fans.

I really struggle with your thinking as find it very narrow and to be frank not very logical in connecting the dots


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[barbarian]

Guys this is going around in circles. Maybe everyone needs to take a bit of a breather, and come back in a few months/when the next crisis hits. Myself included.
.

 

[half]

^^^^

Not necessarily. Open debate if we keep to the topic rather than go after a poster is healthy. If we keep to not playing the man it makes it all the better.

TWAS taught me something a little way back, If I can recall he had calculated that Australia's share of the SANDZZAR deal was around 590K per match including Test matches.

Further TWAS said the media deal was worth 55 million.

You all know my thoughts well. Based on TWAS's figures I am delighted as IMO it illustrates a way forward. But as Nutter says not in a single day or week, but over time.

Based on the media details from TWAS above, I would recommend something like this was given to a proper sports consultancy to determine support from the media, key sponsors etc, as rugbynutter suggested.

Lets copy the A-L, not play in summer, but lets create a 10 team competition with the existing 5 Super Rugby teams as five of the teams. Locate the other cleverly i.e a western Sydney team etc.

Play three rounds meaning 135 games + finals.

142 games at $ 300, 000.00 per game, the current Super Rugby teams I am sure would hold or increase their ratings. So about half the current deal seems feasible. This is 42 million, plus say 15 test matches at 1 million each. That is 57 million or two million more than we currently get.

Obliviously an increase in wages for the new teams, offset by a drop in operating costs in the current format, offset by an increase in crowds, offset by an increase in sponsorship's.

Just consider this, assume crowds average 11, 000 per game (I think it will be more) 11, 000 * 142 games is 1, 562, 000 people through the gate, now assume $30.00 per ticket. That's almost 47 million in crowd revenue, I understand it needs to be offset by stadium hire cost, again we use affordable stadiums.

Its at least worth thinking about and having a look at.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Barbarian I'd go as far to say close the thread until 2020. Nobody is saying the ARU shouldn't try and develop the NRC to be better so let's come back in 4 years and discuss it based on what the ARU has in the bank at the time, how many people are watching the NRC and what it's worth.

Half,

I just had a look at the Reds 2015 figures.

The Reds had expenditure of about $23M and get an ARU grant of $5M as indication of costs.

Match day revenue is $5.9M offset by Match day expenses of $2M. So for the 16 game season they took hope $3.9M in match day income. Apparently their average home attendance was 20,199 so it looks like the Reds get $12 per person through the gates. I'd imagine this increases on higher numbers as costs are fixed. But I'd base it on that anyway.

As for running costs. Some things increase (player and coaching wages) but some do stay the same. Basically football departments would need to be duplicated.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Barbarian I'd go as far to say close the thread until 2020. Nobody is saying the ARU shouldn't try and develop the NRC to be better so let's come back in 4 years and discuss it based on what the ARU has in the bank at the time, how many people are watching the NRC and what it's worth.

Half,

I just had a look at the Reds 2015 figures.

The Reds had expenditure of about $23M and get an ARU grant of $5M as indication of costs.

Match day revenue is $5.9M offset by Match day expenses of $2M. So for the 16 game season they took hope $3.9M in match day income. Apparently their average home attendance was 20,199 so it looks like the Reds get $12 per person through the gates. I'd imagine this increases on higher numbers as costs are fixed. But I'd base it on that anyway.

As for running costs. Some things increase (player and coaching wages) but some do stay the same. Basically football departments would need to be duplicated.

 

[NTT]

This is why there needs to be better co operation and a streamlining/restructure of the administration of the professional arm of the game. Instead of the franchises spending their money competing against each other for sponsorhip, media etc why not centralise these services and have them competing together for sponsorship. Why have 5 people at each franchise processing memberships? Have 5 people in a centralized office doing it. Theres 20 salaries of savings right there. Why have 5 people at each franchise booking grounds and catering services? Have 5 people in a centralized office doing it. Another 20 salaries of savings. Why have 3 different entities running rugby in NSW? Restructure it so the 3 entities are one. More savings.
Bring in the auditors, search for savings in a restructure of how the professional game is administered. I have no doubt whatsoever that you would find at the other 4 franchises, Force have already done this, that there are people employed in duplicate roles that are just, for want of a better phrase, hangers on not really essentially needed. If this was done before the last tv deal, we could have avoided the $5-10 million of bail out payments given to the franchises over the last 2 years.
It all comes back to factions and self interests who are trying to protect themselves instead of doing whats best for everyone. The ARU isn't a political party and should not be hamstrung by its constituents. The ARU should be strong enough to rise above the whole situation it has allowed to establish. The ARU should be doing whats best for the game, not whats best for individual interests. Streamlining administration services and being more efficient and effective with its income while developing mid to long term strategic goals is what the ARU's purpose should be.

 

[half]

Given the thread title the Roy Morgan chart in this article is worth looking at.

http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6...hildren-and-adults-december-2014-201503182151

 

[NTT]

The WRU spent 12.96% of its total revenue on grassroots rugby.

In comparison, the ARU spent just 2.68% on grassroots rugby, $2.3m in 2015.

England spends 15% of its revenue on grassroots, Ireland and New Zealand spend 13%, Scotland 7% and the NRL and AFL spend more than 8% and 9% respectively.

Incredibly, the investment in Australia grassroots rugby could further decrease in the years to come as the ARU attempts to cut costs.

This year, the governing body failed to secure a naming rights sponsor for the England Test series or the Rugby Championship and currently doesn’t have a naming rights sponsor for next year’s Super Rugby season.

Despite that, the ARU still spent $17.56m on corporate expenses last year, almost 20% of their overall revenue.

The flush WRU spent £7.9m (A$12.97m) on wages and salaries, just over 10% of revenue and almost half of their Australian counterparts.

http://www.rugbynews.net.au/welsh-rugbys-focus-on-grassroots-proves-aru-has-got-it-wrong/

 

[Highlander35]

WRU should be putting more money into wages and start getting rid of the exemptions to Gatland's law if that's how little they're spending compared to the performances of the regions.

 

[Quick Hands]

The WRU spent 12.96% of its total revenue on grassroots rugby.

In comparison, the ARU spent just 2.68% on grassroots rugby, $2.3m in 2015.

England spends 15% of its revenue on grassroots, Ireland and New Zealand spend 13%, Scotland 7% and the NRL and AFL spend more than 8% and 9% respectively.

Incredibly, the investment in Australia grassroots rugby could further decrease in the years to come as the ARU attempts to cut costs.

This year, the governing body failed to secure a naming rights sponsor for the England Test series or the Rugby Championship and currently doesn’t have a naming rights sponsor for next year’s Super Rugby season.

Despite that, the ARU still spent $17.56m on corporate expenses last year, almost 20% of their overall revenue.

The flush WRU spent £7.9m (A$12.97m) on wages and salaries, just over 10% of revenue and almost half of their Australian counterparts.

http://www.rugbynews.net.au/welsh-rugbys-focus-on-grassroots-proves-aru-has-got-it-wrong/

Assuming that your figures are correct, it's an indictment on those charged with developing the game in Australia.

 

[wamberal]

Assuming that your figures are correct, it's an indictment on those charged with developing the game in Australia.

I understand that this sort of inference can be drawn, but nothing worthwhile can be gleaned from these superficial observations. Nothing.

 

[Train Without a Station]

They are an individual indictment. Unless you consider the fact that after this the WRU still made a £1.5M profit.

Show me the unions that post losses and still invest in grassroots and that indeed will be an indictment on the ARU.

 

[Strewthcobber]

The numbers aren't right - or at least haven't been presented in context.

All they did was take the line item in the ARU accounts for "community Rugby" and divide it by the total.

Among other things, this ignores some of the most basic spend - the distribution to the member unions (eg where is the money distributed to the South Australian Rugby Union going if not to grass roots?)

You'll get better analysis on here than that article!

 

[Quick Hands]

I understand that this sort of inference can be drawn, but nothing worthwhile can be gleaned from these superficial observations. Nothing.

First of all, I prefaced my comment with the proviso that the figures were correct.

Secondly, sadly too many people in Australian rugby operate with a closed mindset - we can always learn something from what others do.

 

[Train Without a Station]

The figures are correct but you ignore the differences. What does the WRU spend on wages? I'd best less than the $30M+ that the ARU does.

As the Welsh have a terrible record against Aus and no major trophies to show for it, clearly their system is not better than Aus.

Most importantly, their grassroots investment was based on a surplus.

When have the ARU had money left over and not invested it in the grassroots?

Or to look at it from a practical POV, how many financial years where you could pay your mortgage have you invested money in the stock market in hope of good future returns to expand you income base?