Declining participation and ARU plans for the future
- Thread starter RugbyReg
- Start date
stoff
Trevor Allan (34)
Hi Dave. Not quite sure what you mean there about same state and paid, as I thought everyone on a Super Rugby squad was paid. Could you elaborate. Cheers
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
dru
David Wilson (68)
Stoff, I cant talk for Dave but here's a personal perspective.
My employer spends some considerable effort in the world of charities. We are offered the opportunity to assist these charities a couple of days a year. Its not a dictate from my employer, but my work community and friendships around it, well hell it wouldnt be considered well if I didnt pull my weight.
Nothing in my work contract about this, its just an expectation of this particular community. Not unreasonable either.
My employer spends some considerable effort in the world of charities. We are offered the opportunity to assist these charities a couple of days a year. Its not a dictate from my employer, but my work community and friendships around it, well hell it wouldnt be considered well if I didnt pull my weight.
Nothing in my work contract about this, its just an expectation of this particular community. Not unreasonable either.
Dave Beat
Paul McLean (56)
Dru spot on.
Stoff, alot of water has flowed under the bridge since Brumbies, Rebs, Force said their players can't drift back to their premier clubs if they were in another state - we've all accepted it and moved on.
One of the points when all that was discussed was it will help rugby develop, and with that comes all sorts if jobs big and small - the small 1%ers.
Unfortnately I think all 5 Soup franchises and ARU have neglected grass roots and some of the recent results may bring out the quote - look out the scoreboard.
I wonder if the question has been asked why might we be dropping back to 4 Soup teams, and also reviewed what could have been done differently so we could be growing in strength rather than shinking?
Whilst we can bang on about what the ARU and the Soup Teams don't do, I think we need to bear in mind when alot of us where playing our junior rugby 30 + years ago we didnt have technology and our parents, and teachers seemed to have more time (and teachers more interest).
In the above, or now preceeding page I shared a very basic budget and idea about building rugby in our primary schools, and looked to show if it was done properly it may not be an expense.
To finish on a positive;
So to share an example, whilst up in Syd Reece Hodge was interviewed by a current student of his old high school in the school assembly and presented his Wallaby Jersey to the school. FYI Public High School System.
Some of the boys from the HS are also in this CC7's u17 team, with a couple of the Ausie Gold medalists.
We are working with that and other highschools to build what was in place many years ago - a strong competitive Peninsular Cup.
Opportunity and the frame work of it is out there, the next step is giving the kids the opportunity, and doing this repeatidly will build results.
Doing the 1%ers.
The torpedo
Peter Fenwicke (45)
Question for everyone: Picks on what year we might be able to win the Bled? 2025? 2030? never?
Please be honest (and serious)
Please be honest (and serious)
Quick Hands
David Wilson (68)
I don't think anyone will beat NZ in a 3 test series in the foreseeable future. They'll drop the odd test here and there, but AB rugby is as strong as I've ever seen it.
Dave Beat
Paul McLean (56)
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
So what would you do if you were suddenly appointed CEO of the ARU?
Here's what I would do. Firstly, I would do a bit of research, or rather, I would commission IBISWorld or a similar organisation to do some forecasting of the future based on fairly simple extrapolation of the current trends in the factors influencing and defining our game.
Secondly, I would visit the NZRFU and the IRB to ascertain how much they care about the future viability of the game in Australia. I would also talk to the Federal Government, and a couple of the State Governments, and three or four major universities.
Thirdly, when research is finalised, I would call a meeting of all major stakeholders at which the results could be unveiled and discussed. Maybe the future looks bright. But I doubt it. In fact, it probably looks pretty bloody difficult.
So the meeting is open for all and any suggestions. What can we do, either as a collective, or as individual bodies. (I might be in a position to inject some ideas from the IRB or the NZRFU, hopefully even something from governments or the universities.)
Then I would call for a task force of maybe 6 to 8 thinkers and doers who are willing and able to come up with some alternative strategies.
One of the keys in all this is to develop some sense of genuine ownership of the game by all the stakeholders, and at the same time a general acceptance that we will all have to put our own sectional interests aside and work together, selflessly and collegiately, to give the game a genuine lasting future here, as a serious, elite sport, which is competitive at all levels of the game.
Here's what I would do. Firstly, I would do a bit of research, or rather, I would commission IBISWorld or a similar organisation to do some forecasting of the future based on fairly simple extrapolation of the current trends in the factors influencing and defining our game.
Secondly, I would visit the NZRFU and the IRB to ascertain how much they care about the future viability of the game in Australia. I would also talk to the Federal Government, and a couple of the State Governments, and three or four major universities.
Thirdly, when research is finalised, I would call a meeting of all major stakeholders at which the results could be unveiled and discussed. Maybe the future looks bright. But I doubt it. In fact, it probably looks pretty bloody difficult.
So the meeting is open for all and any suggestions. What can we do, either as a collective, or as individual bodies. (I might be in a position to inject some ideas from the IRB or the NZRFU, hopefully even something from governments or the universities.)
Then I would call for a task force of maybe 6 to 8 thinkers and doers who are willing and able to come up with some alternative strategies.
One of the keys in all this is to develop some sense of genuine ownership of the game by all the stakeholders, and at the same time a general acceptance that we will all have to put our own sectional interests aside and work together, selflessly and collegiately, to give the game a genuine lasting future here, as a serious, elite sport, which is competitive at all levels of the game.
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
Thanks, mate. 30 years ago I would have jumped at it. And, with all due modesty, I had a pretty good resume at the time.
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
So if the aru has agreed to cut a oz super rugby side how does that fit with strategic plan to grow the game. Do we actually have a plan around this?
Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
WorkingClassRugger
Michael Lynagh (62)
If we cut a side I want to see either a significant jump in investment in the pathways or a real drive to resource and proliferate the Viva 7s platform.
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
Yes plus plans to move to trans_tasman_Asian conference post 2020.
Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
You know many of old hands in here who have been pushing for a domestic professional competition should start to be excited they might finally see change in their lifetime. I use to quote my vision for a professional domestic competition as at least a ten year project. With the rapid disassembling of current super rugby format and massive media dissension bubbling to the surface and push by fans and key stakeholders in oz for a domestic competition / conference ( a trans Tasman Asian conference is better quasi domestic pro.competition I include in this category), I now feel this could be a three to five year vision at best.
Like most of the old hands this could finally head rugby down the right long term path. This might make the future a bit more promising in light of the current bleak status quo as sometimes you need to let things self destruct to get the real change needed. So maybe sanzaar with its 18 team format has done us a favour to more quickly highlight the flaws in our over reliance on a.super rugby format that is tired and old and does nothing for our domestic game.
I am excited about the future as long as whoever is in charge of rugby listens to what fans want. As they want change and a more domestic facing professional competition. This could finally allow the creation of a more domestic appealing rugby product that fans want to watch, kids want to play and compete better against football, nrl and afl. We need an innovator to come in and lead rugby through this change who is prepared to do what us is required to create a Rugby product that best meets the needs of our markets. It is a competitive market and cricket has shown how one can innovate to attract new fans and new products to appeal to domestic markets. We have a real opportunity to finally make the changes to make rugby more competitive against other codes. Let's hope the powers that be don't fuck up this great opportunity to make the required Changes this opportunity presents.
Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
Lol aware of what is required for a pure domestic competition and hence trans Tasman conference the realistic pipe dream. Dreams of another allsports type investment is the lotto we all dream of.
Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
The torpedo
Peter Fenwicke (45)
Can I ask why? I don't disagree with your post (in fact it seems more and more likely as the days go by) but I would be interested to see your justification
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
Because the gap between us and the Keewees is widening and deepening, year by year.
There is nothing that I can see on the horizon that will halt this trend, let alone reverse it.
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
Ok why the ARU get a hard time as our governing body Wamberal's post on a thread makes it true that sometimes we don't give credit where it is due about the positive things ARU is doing.
Bill inherited Super Rugby and yep at same time under his stewardship we have seen a NRC mark 2 complete its 3rd season as a self sustaining competition that is unearthing more Super Rugby and Wallaby prospects and improving as a competition in its appeal and audiences. Sure from a low base but difficult to start a competition from scratch in a code much maligned code that has suffered from long term neglect and suffering from terminal fan decline over the years with ever diminishing interest. They have also launched a new product successful with the Brisbane 10's and despite the heat wave which clearly affected attendance it was a success. They have also launched new products like Game On and Viva 7's which are growing in popularity. Whilst we have seen success of 7's with Womens gold medal and growth this is giving to the game especially with this now an Olympic sport and success of Sydney 7's leg.
Yes still a lot of problems to solve and difficult stakeholders to harang and navigate through who hold back Oz rugby and are more to blame why rugby has struggled to move forward in recent times than ARU imo (yes the Shute Shield is the world brigade who have got more air time than deserved in last 6 months). As trying to navigate change in what is a difficult environment I probably give the ARU a B- given scale and difficulty of change to be made. If I could get rid of anyone it would be some of the Shute Shield is the world die hards who stop real change and supporting positive initiatives like the NRC. The anger showed by the Oz public with the furore over the wallabies legends letter to the ARU showed that. Wish they would bloody listen though and get more on the bandwagon of working with the ARU to enact positive change.
Yes I think the ARU are working with things like NRC as long term ambition to create a more sustainable long form professional competition but yes they like I and other realise it will take a long time and inheriting the basket case that is Super Rugby and our unfortunate dependence on it is not something the current administration should hold blame for which they have inherited from previous administrations decisions. But we can't suddenly move to the holy grail as we need to ensure financial stable with whatever is implemented. This is why the NRC mark 11 gets a big thumbs up for me as passes that key test. Sure comes with limitations on marketing but that is because they are first and foremost making sure it is around in 5 to 10 years and not going broke by trying to grow too quickly.
So yep I support Bill Pulver keeping his job and rest of ARU as long as they keep trying to push the change agenda. As cripes it would have to be one of the most difficult jobs to try and drive real change in Oz rugby and they are making inroads so yes credit where it is due.
Bill inherited Super Rugby and yep at same time under his stewardship we have seen a NRC mark 2 complete its 3rd season as a self sustaining competition that is unearthing more Super Rugby and Wallaby prospects and improving as a competition in its appeal and audiences. Sure from a low base but difficult to start a competition from scratch in a code much maligned code that has suffered from long term neglect and suffering from terminal fan decline over the years with ever diminishing interest. They have also launched a new product successful with the Brisbane 10's and despite the heat wave which clearly affected attendance it was a success. They have also launched new products like Game On and Viva 7's which are growing in popularity. Whilst we have seen success of 7's with Womens gold medal and growth this is giving to the game especially with this now an Olympic sport and success of Sydney 7's leg.
Yes still a lot of problems to solve and difficult stakeholders to harang and navigate through who hold back Oz rugby and are more to blame why rugby has struggled to move forward in recent times than ARU imo (yes the Shute Shield is the world brigade who have got more air time than deserved in last 6 months). As trying to navigate change in what is a difficult environment I probably give the ARU a B- given scale and difficulty of change to be made. If I could get rid of anyone it would be some of the Shute Shield is the world die hards who stop real change and supporting positive initiatives like the NRC. The anger showed by the Oz public with the furore over the wallabies legends letter to the ARU showed that. Wish they would bloody listen though and get more on the bandwagon of working with the ARU to enact positive change.
Yes I think the ARU are working with things like NRC as long term ambition to create a more sustainable long form professional competition but yes they like I and other realise it will take a long time and inheriting the basket case that is Super Rugby and our unfortunate dependence on it is not something the current administration should hold blame for which they have inherited from previous administrations decisions. But we can't suddenly move to the holy grail as we need to ensure financial stable with whatever is implemented. This is why the NRC mark 11 gets a big thumbs up for me as passes that key test. Sure comes with limitations on marketing but that is because they are first and foremost making sure it is around in 5 to 10 years and not going broke by trying to grow too quickly.
So yep I support Bill Pulver keeping his job and rest of ARU as long as they keep trying to push the change agenda. As cripes it would have to be one of the most difficult jobs to try and drive real change in Oz rugby and they are making inroads so yes credit where it is due.