Priorities For The New ARU CEO

[TOCC]

A little bit off topic, but I'm a believer that Sydney/NSW would have benefited by having an extra super rugby team introduced to the state.. This isn't a debate about the merits of the Force/Rebels, purely making the observation that some competition in the marketplace and alternative options for NSW rugby fans to support could really help rugby union flourish in the state..

QLD is different, Queenslanders have a history of supporting and being parochial towards one team, however Sydney is a different story, there are more distinct demographic and socioeconomic divides within the city, regions and suburbs within the city have their own identity and parochialism..

Sydney folk are used to having an option, A-league, NRL, AFL all have multiple sides in the city and the intra-city matches are some of the highest rating of the season..

Anyway, rant over

 

[Train Without a Station]

A little bit off topic, but I'm a believer that Sydney/NSW would have benefited by having an extra super rugby team introduced to the state.

To add to the one they are booing and not supporting already? Hardly anybody get's to the Homebush games unless they are a big game so you can't say it's a geographical thing. Build the support up for the Waratahs first and then it would be viable.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Would you care to expand on this, IS.

Sure - but it comes back to my hobby horse of depowering the private schools.
There should be a linear chain of command.
On top the ARU - possibly split between the professional game and the community game. Im not too fussed about that because my impression is that would only formalise the present reality.
In the community game only the state unions would be affiliated to the ARU.
You then create "regional" unions - in NSW say "North Shore" "Hunter" "South Coast"- which have responsibility for all rugby played within their geographical boundary - including schools. The North Shore Rugby Union might include the Shute Shield club Gordon together with the subbies clubs like Barker and Knox Old Boys, and the junior clubs. You might need a lower north shore with Norths and Mosman. Obviously one would need access to demographics and reliable player numbers to make decisions like this - it is probably preferable that there be no more than 2 Shute Shield clubs in each area.
You would have Northern Beaches, Hills, South Eastern and the Shire at least in Sydney.
North Shore, as an example, send teams to the state titles, schools championships etc where they play against other regions.
The regional unions would be perfect for fielding 3.5 tier teams on our way to a proper or more demanding 3rd tier - they could call on the occasional exceptional subbies player from within their area, for instance. The regional unions would also have an interest in knowing what rugby playing talent lay within their boundaries in all age groups.
By this means it ceases to matter whether your school plays rugby or not because you will be able to have a defined path, which is the same as everyone else's, to play the game at the level to which you aspire. Also the regional unions should have access to players from cradle to grave instead of losing touch with many of them from about 14 until they leave school.

 

[p.Tah]

^^ I agree with TWAS, however if we bring back the academies I would like the Tahs to have two. One based in the East and one in the Western Suburbs. Call it a pseudo satellite Tahs club. To be eligible to be picked in the Western academy you need to play Shute Shield for either Eastwood, West Harbour, Parramatta or Penrith. The Easten academy draws in the other Shute Shield Clubs. Slightly uneven but would help the game out west IMO.

 

[Scott Allen]

Having just read the article posted by Reds Happy there are two figures that I find particularly alarming.

First is the free to air viewers of only 550,000 for the highest rating Bledisloe Cup game last year compared to 1.58 million in 2001 for the corresponding match - that is down 65%! If I recall correctly the Bledisloe Cup games were shown live by Channel 9 last year so the fall cannot be attributed to the broadcaster alone. I guess some will be more people watching on Fox than in 2001 but 65%?

Second is the reduction in revenue from corporate hospitality and gate takings. Down from a combined $34.3 million in 2010 to $18.1 million in 2011 - a 47% reduction in the same year that an Australian team won the Super Rugby Championship and generated a lot of excitement for the game. It's not really comparing apples to apples as we missed out on two games due to the shortened Tri-Nations before the RWC - but that doesn't account for a 47% reduction!

It is not the CEO's or the boards job to influence how the Wallabies are playing but to grow the game free to air coverage has to be good and people have to be attracted by the rugby the Wallabies are playing or they will not watch on TV or go to games live.

It will be interesting to see the 2012 numbers for both these measures which I suspect will both be poor again given the poor year the Wallabies had.

The Lions tour this year will no doubt provide a major boost in attendance and free to air viewers but I hope that isn't used to try and paper over the real and major problems within the game in this country.

The decline over the last few years cannot be changed. The CEO or the board don't have to acknowledge there are problems in public (as that would not help at all) but let's hope behind closed doors the fact that there are problems is acknowledged and solutions are put in place urgently in order to ride the wave associated with the Lions tour.

 

[Scott Allen]

^^ I agree with TWAS, however if we bring back the academies I would like the Tahs to have two. One based in the East and one in the Western Suburbs. Call it a pseudo satellite Tahs club. To be eligible to be picked in the Western academy you need to play Shute Shield for either Eastwood, West Harbour, Parramatta or Penrith. The Easten academy draws in the other Shute Shield Clubs. Slightly uneven but would help the game out west IMO.

Think you can safely assume there will never be two academies anywhere. The cost factor of having four academies was the big issue, hence the reduction to two. I can't see how any CEO coming into an organisation that is losing money will reverse that previous decision AND and add the costs of another location, regardless of the merits of the argument for that.

Despite the positive of centralisation of the best players from only having two academies the Super franchises have gone their own way and therefore the central aim of the academy system - that is to develop players ready for Super Rugby - cannot be achieved as the franchises will no doubt intend to use their own wider squad players rather than draw from the academies, so there must be change.

The most logical solution on the academies seems to me to be that the ARU takes whatever funds they have allocated to the two academies and divides that between the four franchises (the Rebels deal includes them funding their own). In return for these funds the ARU should ask for a veto on coaches employed by the franchises and on the programs in each academy to get some of the benefits of centralisation for the 7's program and U20's.

I'd suggest the other trade off the ARU could seek is that as the academy players would then be training with the franchises (who would therefore have a bigger squad) the ARU would gain the right to manage the number of games played by the players the ARU pays top ups to - something like 6-10 training sessions off each season and a game off per season for each player the ARU is paying.

 

[wamberal]

There is a vast amount of wishful thinking on this thread. Guys, we do not have the money to do what you want.

 

[No4918]

The only way to stop losing money and interest the sporting public is WINNING. I don't think it's a coincidence that the viewer numbers have declined 65% as we have lost 10 Bledisloes in a row.

Until the Wallabies stop underperforming on the field i don't know how much a new CEO can do to help viewership & interest, maybe getting a game of Super Rugby on FTA while not losing anything from the current deal would be a start. But it comes down to the Wallabies, the conference can win all the Super Rugby titles we like but it's not going to help as much as winning the Bledisloe at least 1/2 years and the TRC 1/3-4 years. This is the minimum that should be expected from a top 3 team.

 

[p.Tah]

There is a vast amount of wishful thinking on this thread. Guys, we do not have the money to do what you want.

Perhaps wamberal, but if you don't put the ideas out there, no matter how pie in the sky they may seem, you often won't find the realistic solutions. That's my attempt at channelling the Dalai Lama for the day.

Although we don't want to piss all the money away. Isn't the ARU suppose to earn $60m for the Lions tour?

Australian rugby is about to come into a rumoured $60 million bonus, but it is a windfall that basically has dropped into its lap, courtesy of the television rights negotiated for next year's British and Irish Lions tour of Australia.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...-withers-on-vine/story-e6frg7v6-1226458446698

 

[Inside Shoulder]

The only way to stop losing money and interest the sporting public is WINNING. I don't think it's a coincidence that the viewer numbers have declined 65% as we have lost 10 Bledisloes in a row.

Until the Wallabies stop underperforming on the field i don't know how much a new CEO can do to help viewership & interest, maybe getting a game of Super Rugby on FTA while not losing anything from the current deal would be a start. But it comes down to the Wallabies, the conference can win all the Super Rugby titles we like but it's not going to help as much as winning the Bledisloe at least 1/2 years and the TRC 1/3-4 years. This is the minimum that should be expected from a top 3 team.

This is true.
However it is not a problem that can be solved short term - we need to address the requirement for more, better players by attracting more players at the junior level and nurturing them: its a numbers game and we need to be getting a go at the kids that league gets if we wish to remain internationally competitive.
If we do not do this we will be writing the same things when Pulver is being given his gold watch and the next CEO is uttering the same platitudes on the way in.

 

[Man on the hill]

Time to move on - ever heard of the chicken & the egg?

 

[TOCC]

Time to move on - ever heard of the chicken & the egg?

Yeah.. They were created by God

 

[kiap]

Yeah.. They were created by God

Nah..... ovalved

 

[Ruggo]

His first priority should be staff. Then delegate what needs to be done. High performance manager can oversee the elite level and I would like to see the CEO work on increasing the national footprint of rugby at a community level working with the state unions.

I want clear strategic objectives in place for how the gains from the Lions tour will be invested into growing the game around Australia at all levels.

 

[wamberal]

The CEO and Board need to set achievable objectives, underpinned by a rational strategy.


There is absolutely no point in aiming too high - arguably, that was O'Neill's biggest single failing. If, for example, the ARU had set out to co-exist and cooperate with the NRL (as distasteful as it would be to me personally), we might be in a better, stronger, place today.

Instead, JON went on the attack, alienating many potential supporters, and maybe missing some opportunities for synergy.

Again, I stress that I do not like league, and do not watch it: I have criticised the game and its culture up-hill and down-dale for many years. However, it is pretty obvious that the ARU and NRL do in fact have some common enemies (not only the AFL, but also European, and to some extent, Japanese rugby) while sharing some important similarities. We have to face the simple fact that theirs is a mainstream sport in Australia, and ours is a niche sport. We all expected things to be different, but they are not. We are a niche sport, and need to start working and planning accordingly.


If I were in a senior position with the ARU, I would be doing two things. I would be having a serious conversation with the IRB as to whether and what assistance they are prepared to give us as we continue to struggle to compete in a very crowded marketplace. Secondly, I would be talking with the NRL, and looking for areas of potential cooperation.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

wamberal I am surprised you think JON aimed too high: could you give some examples?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Slim 293]

I don't see how AFL is an enemy?

We're certainly not on their radar.........

 

[TOCC]

Fans, broadcast rights, media exposure, sponsors, grassroot participation, govt funding.... Rugby Union competes with the AFL/NRL/A-League on all these fronts, hence why they are considered market competition or an 'enemy' if you will.

 

[Slim 293]

I realise that, but the way in which wamberal phrased it made it out to seem that it was the rugby codes v AFL, and the NRL is far more of a threat to us than AFL.........

 

[Ruggo]

I don't see how AFL is an enemy?

We're certainly not on their radar...

I generally find AFL people to be very receptive towards rugby. They generally appreciate the higher skill level than League. Well that has been my experience anyways.