p.Tah
John Thornett (49)
I think I've spotted our problem. Fish don't have legs
The Awful Truth About The ARU's Financial Position
- Thread starter Scott Allen
- Start date
- Status
I think unions problems are bigger then the ratings issues, its also a problem with its market.
3 potential purchasers.
9 - has league, wont want union - but would get afl at the right price
7 - has afl probably wont want union - but would get league at the right price.
10 - wants either league or afl
Nobody wants to pay for it. IMO just make a subscription to a super15 league pass mandatory with your mandatory ipad and your random private schools and theirs your revenue problem fixed.
Preaching to the converted, but then that is why there are two different rugby codes.
3 potential purchasers.
9 - has league, wont want union - but would get afl at the right price
7 - has afl probably wont want union - but would get league at the right price.
10 - wants either league or afl
Nobody wants to pay for it. IMO just make a subscription to a super15 league pass mandatory with your mandatory ipad and your random private schools and theirs your revenue problem fixed.
Preaching to the converted, but then that is why there are two different rugby codes.
RugbyFuture
Lord Logo
Actually 10 have previously offered to pay for one super rugby game a week to go to free to air, but fox wanted exclusivity so the ARU went with fox.
Channel ten have also said they would treat rugby as its major sport. That can be demonstrated in MAtt Burkes position as the prime time newsreader and the hiring of Gordon Bray for commentary.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/rugby-switches-to-network-ten/story-e6frg6n6-1226501331457
Channel ten have also said they would treat rugby as its major sport. That can be demonstrated in MAtt Burkes position as the prime time newsreader and the hiring of Gordon Bray for commentary.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/rugby-switches-to-network-ten/story-e6frg6n6-1226501331457
The biggest problem is that FTA will only ever want a prime time Friday or Saturday night game and that is where the overwhelming majority of the value in the Australian Super Rugby rights lies which makes it very unattractive for Foxtel to give this up in any way.
Maybe the starting point is a Sunday afternoon replay or something. This would have the least impact on Foxtel's overall rights.
Maybe the starting point is a Sunday afternoon replay or something. This would have the least impact on Foxtel's overall rights.
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
Presumably because the Fox offer for exclusivity was significantly more attractive than non-exclusive Fox plus TEN. Anyway, I thought that these decisions belong to SAANZAR?
What does using Gordon Bray as a commentator prove? He was never much chop and frankly he has no alternative gigs AFAIK. I would guess he came pretty cheaply.
Saying that they would treat rugby as their major sport means very little, particularly when they don't have any of the really major sports.
RugbyFuture
Lord Logo
more of this terrible negativity from their community. I wasn't debating whether it was smaller or bigger in terms of the dollars. Was pointing out contrary to papabears post but here goes anyway.
Gordon Bray, whether you think is much good or not has become an essential marketing tool in rugby. His voice and tone and continuous ramblings on random facts about the players has become so synonymous with the game on free to air that people associate rugby being legitimate with his voice. This has been done successfully with other sounds and audio cues for other sports. Ray Hadley in league, phil ligett in cycling, Terry Wogan for eurovision. Other audio cues that have become an essential part of marketing and the brand of a sport includes the buzzer in the AFL along with the AFL team songs. He's spent 40 years being associated with the sound of the game whether you rate him or not.
I know you people don't like the fact that Rugby needs to be branded and marketed (you're in the same cheap boat as some of the administrators) but the fact is to survive it has to, and that has been one of the greatest failures of the game with its strong corporate - rather than people friendly - image. Bray brings a degree of being people friendly.
He was working for 2gb between seven and ten. Thats of no consequence though because I also have the feeling he's in it for the LOVE of the game rather than the money, isn't that something we sometimes lament about as fans?
Channel ten may not have any of the "really major sports" but that puts us as an incressingly minor sport to get on board with them. To dismiss their ability in sports broadcasting would be idiotic, though I wouldn't put it past many of you who seems to think that there must be no growth period or development but only a slot in the highest possible spot automatically because OBVIOUSLY everyone in Australia thinks like you...Channel ten developed the style of coverage that lead the V8 supercars to seven to bring an example of growth of coverage to your eyes.
But don't listen to me....you should just dismiss every opportunity, suggestion and new blood that comes with rugby administration, because you don't think it needs to look for those, the leather patch brigade are already doing the game good....
Gordon Bray, whether you think is much good or not has become an essential marketing tool in rugby. His voice and tone and continuous ramblings on random facts about the players has become so synonymous with the game on free to air that people associate rugby being legitimate with his voice. This has been done successfully with other sounds and audio cues for other sports. Ray Hadley in league, phil ligett in cycling, Terry Wogan for eurovision. Other audio cues that have become an essential part of marketing and the brand of a sport includes the buzzer in the AFL along with the AFL team songs. He's spent 40 years being associated with the sound of the game whether you rate him or not.
I know you people don't like the fact that Rugby needs to be branded and marketed (you're in the same cheap boat as some of the administrators) but the fact is to survive it has to, and that has been one of the greatest failures of the game with its strong corporate - rather than people friendly - image. Bray brings a degree of being people friendly.
He was working for 2gb between seven and ten. Thats of no consequence though because I also have the feeling he's in it for the LOVE of the game rather than the money, isn't that something we sometimes lament about as fans?
Channel ten may not have any of the "really major sports" but that puts us as an incressingly minor sport to get on board with them. To dismiss their ability in sports broadcasting would be idiotic, though I wouldn't put it past many of you who seems to think that there must be no growth period or development but only a slot in the highest possible spot automatically because OBVIOUSLY everyone in Australia thinks like you...Channel ten developed the style of coverage that lead the V8 supercars to seven to bring an example of growth of coverage to your eyes.
But don't listen to me....you should just dismiss every opportunity, suggestion and new blood that comes with rugby administration, because you don't think it needs to look for those, the leather patch brigade are already doing the game good....
Rob42
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Yes, it's SANZAR that makes the rights decisions, so Pulver will have to convince both SA and NZ that the AUst FTA gamble is worth it.
The BBL has been great for 10, and it'd be nice if a Super Rugby game went the same way. But it could also go like A-League on SBS - negligible impact as far as I can see for 1 game per week (prime time Friday nights). Sure, it's on their 2nd station, but there were plenty of soccer fans saying exactly the same thing we say - that as soon as the game gets on FTA, interest will spike and it'll be happy days.
The BBL has been great for 10, and it'd be nice if a Super Rugby game went the same way. But it could also go like A-League on SBS - negligible impact as far as I can see for 1 game per week (prime time Friday nights). Sure, it's on their 2nd station, but there were plenty of soccer fans saying exactly the same thing we say - that as soon as the game gets on FTA, interest will spike and it'll be happy days.
Maybe the answer is to have an Australian game on a Thursday night or Sunday evening so it can be shown on FTA and doesn't conflict with FTA coverage of league or AFL.
Of course that would be difficult to schedule into the overall draw without making life difficult for teams but might be what is needed.
Of course that would be difficult to schedule into the overall draw without making life difficult for teams but might be what is needed.
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
Quality rant. Just for the record, I worked in a senior executive position in a very successful (and profitable) sporting organisation for some years (not in Australia, and not in rugby), and I have also worked in market research. So don't tell me what I like and don't like about marketing or product differentiation. I was simply questioning some of your assertions. If you have a problem with that, I am very sorry. But you need to toughen up a bit, old chap, if you want to take part in creative discussions.
Blimey. I'll ring Singo and tell him that I am finally qualified to get a leather patch. (We went to the same State High School together, and played rugby together, at and after school).
Badger
Bill McLean (32)
It would be a good idea to to emulate the NZRU model with the same major and sleeve sponsor. It would certainly be attractive to see their brand on screen for 80 minutes in a number of games over a weekend.
Probably also get a better deal if they use the same kit supplier like Kiwis do with Adidas. The Rebels and Reds wear BLK gear so the Tahs could join them as their contract with Canterbury concludes at the end of 2014. As the Brumbies have just signed up Classic as kit supplier, it could be a reason why they are not part of the merger proposal at the moment.
Rugby Central
Charlie Fox (21)
Made this comment on SIRU thread but though it relevent here.
How about the Wallabies give half their match payments to community Clubs. They get $10K per game. If they gave $2.5K to 2 different Clubs (which could be tax deductable) after each game that's at least 30 Clubs benefiting every match. Assuming 3 European tour matches plus the 9 currently scheduled internationals that would be:
12 x 30 = 360 Rugby Clubs receiving $2.5K. With most club making no payments whatsever to anybody that money would go a long way to helping rugby across Australia.
Yes they've taken a "paycut" of $14K to $10K for match payments but this donation could be tax deductable so they actually don't lose anything.
Or should the players be considered such hard working individuals over the mums and dad's holding down a full time job (almost all on less than the players earn through regular salary), looking after their families AND running rugby clubs so there are players in the future.
OR..they forfeit their entire match payment when they lose. That way either community Club's get a massive cash injection or the game receives a great morale shot from a winning Wallabies team. After the last couple of years half the Junior Clubs could turn professional
How about the Wallabies give half their match payments to community Clubs. They get $10K per game. If they gave $2.5K to 2 different Clubs (which could be tax deductable) after each game that's at least 30 Clubs benefiting every match. Assuming 3 European tour matches plus the 9 currently scheduled internationals that would be:
12 x 30 = 360 Rugby Clubs receiving $2.5K. With most club making no payments whatsever to anybody that money would go a long way to helping rugby across Australia.
Yes they've taken a "paycut" of $14K to $10K for match payments but this donation could be tax deductable so they actually don't lose anything.
Or should the players be considered such hard working individuals over the mums and dad's holding down a full time job (almost all on less than the players earn through regular salary), looking after their families AND running rugby clubs so there are players in the future.
OR..they forfeit their entire match payment when they lose. That way either community Club's get a massive cash injection or the game receives a great morale shot from a winning Wallabies team. After the last couple of years half the Junior Clubs could turn professional
Rugby Central
Charlie Fox (21)
Fair enough on the tax deductibility issue. Not a taxation expert so won't question it.
I guess asking people to forgo $5-$10K out of a $200K+ salary is a bit much to ask. Especially when the community game dies and there's nobody to even subsidise salaries worth half as much then the players can take comfort in knowing they bled the game dry. The next generation of players (who don't go to league or overseas) can look forward to princely pay packets of $50K
And before anyone asks, I put in about $2-$3K a year, my salary is less than $100K, I owe nothing to anyone in rugby and I'm just a tiny bit player at the tip of a very large iceberg of people who give so much more.
So if asking that people with the means, opportunity and reason to provide for the lower level of the game "isn't on" then the Wallabies are not worthy of support.
I guess asking people to forgo $5-$10K out of a $200K+ salary is a bit much to ask. Especially when the community game dies and there's nobody to even subsidise salaries worth half as much then the players can take comfort in knowing they bled the game dry. The next generation of players (who don't go to league or overseas) can look forward to princely pay packets of $50K
And before anyone asks, I put in about $2-$3K a year, my salary is less than $100K, I owe nothing to anyone in rugby and I'm just a tiny bit player at the tip of a very large iceberg of people who give so much more.
So if asking that people with the means, opportunity and reason to provide for the lower level of the game "isn't on" then the Wallabies are not worthy of support.
Rugby Central
Charlie Fox (21)
With regards to Super Rugby finances. I'm aware they're separate from the ARU, how much money is spent on training and playing gear for players and officials etc. with so many different jerseys and training shirts. Looking at the papers they seem to always be wearing something different.
It costs about $10-12K to fit out a Senior Rugby Club with 4 teams. That's shorts, socks, jersey, training shirts and polo. Each of which has to last the whole year.
I'm aware that there's a need for certain amount of kit and I don't begrudge anyone doing it. And there could be sweetheart deals for the apparel company's for the association with the professional Clubs. But if the game is in as much financial trouble as we are told then savings could possibly be found in the seemingly excessive amounts of clothing players are provided with.
Just thinking.
It costs about $10-12K to fit out a Senior Rugby Club with 4 teams. That's shorts, socks, jersey, training shirts and polo. Each of which has to last the whole year.
I'm aware that there's a need for certain amount of kit and I don't begrudge anyone doing it. And there could be sweetheart deals for the apparel company's for the association with the professional Clubs. But if the game is in as much financial trouble as we are told then savings could possibly be found in the seemingly excessive amounts of clothing players are provided with.
Just thinking.
Rugby Central
Charlie Fox (21)
Apologies for the hyperbole. I'm just frustrated. When watching so many people give so much of their time, money and emotion to keep the game going, they then get asked to "do their bit" for the good of the game, by slugging them with a levy on top of everything else.
Please understand there are people who have risked and ruined relationships, sufferred financial hardship becasue they want to create an environment where people who want to play rugby can.
The players are paid hansomely for what they do. Yes their sporting careers are short but I will never assume or accept the argument that these players are too stupid or incapable of having a career after rugby. So asking them to forgo a portion, not all, of their bonus money - salary is untouched - doesn't seem like a massive ask.
Again, apologies for allowing my frustration to spill over.
The Wallabies have already agreed to take a pay cut over the next two years.
USARugger
John Thornett (49)
Consider it water under the bridge, I deleted my post when I saw you had amended yours.
Unfortunately the player payments are, to a degree, set by the global market and I really think they are the last people that should be blamed for a lack of financial saliency in Australian rugby.
A lot of poor managing went into creating this situation and I really just think that further cuts to player payments should be the final option if all else fails.
Unfortunately the player payments are, to a degree, set by the global market and I really think they are the last people that should be blamed for a lack of financial saliency in Australian rugby.
A lot of poor managing went into creating this situation and I really just think that further cuts to player payments should be the final option if all else fails.
Rugby Central
Charlie Fox (21)
You are right, but this cut is to top up match payments, not salary.
The market does determine the payments to a degree. I just wonder about the motivation of someone in the National team who would shun the honour based on a reduction of their "bonus". It might be a bit unfair to ask this much of the players but as I mentioned (poorly) previously, will their be much of a game to represent and pay them if all the money runs out.
Management cannot get of lightly here. They definitely created the situation. If Bill is being honest then several are now looking for work or earning less, which is a good thing.
In line with my questions regarding apparel I will look for other minor savings that could hopefully add up. BTW, yes that suggestion may also seem to be something against the players but do you really think how much gear they get would determine whether they sign with a franchise?
- Status