All well and good, RH, but I didn't say it was a media enterprise, rather drew a parallel to how we fit into the plan from the ARU point of view, which I think is not dissimilar. The reality is that they try to run it as a financially viable enterprise as much as anything, so they look at the bottom line. If their main focus was growing the game, why axe the ARC which produced good rugby, and may have helped grow the game? It was the prohibitive cost. Why treat the FTA viewer with comtempt by selling rights to Ch 9, who rather predictably sold the game out for their own ends? They paid the money others wouldn't.
I wasn't talking about shareholder return, as I know they don't have any. But they sure as hell don't like making a loss. I was talking about their responsibility being to the board and keeping it viable, and so their focus is different that the average fan, who wants rugby to grow bigger and the major teams they follow to win. Of course those things may lead on to a better outcome for the ARU.
I don't necessarily agree with the way they do it, just was pointing out that they might not see the whole picture quite the same a we fans do.
I wasn't talking about shareholder return, as I know they don't have any. But they sure as hell don't like making a loss. I was talking about their responsibility being to the board and keeping it viable, and so their focus is different that the average fan, who wants rugby to grow bigger and the major teams they follow to win. Of course those things may lead on to a better outcome for the ARU.
I don't necessarily agree with the way they do it, just was pointing out that they might not see the whole picture quite the same a we fans do.
