The Awful Truth About The ARU's Financial Position
- Thread starter Scott Allen
- Start date
- Status
mst
Peter Johnson (47)
This is certainly worth a read - take note all (especially Tah's supporters). This is the attitude we need to adopted here in Australia.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...acens-ready-to-take-rugby-world-by-storm.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...acens-ready-to-take-rugby-world-by-storm.html
Luvmyrugby
Allen Oxlade (6)
Well the announcements today re theNRC aren't going to fill the coffers. No free to air, one match ow on Foxtel ! Boy that'll grow the game and attract sponsorship cheques and TV rights deals!
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
Yep you are right.
But that's never been the intention for reviving this comp.
It's about providing a competition to develop players,without sending the joint broke.
I'm backing BP ATM, this is a good thing for the sport.
No one can just wave a fucking magic wand,and turn this sport into the most popular winter sport in the country.
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Go back to The KFC BBL three years ago - besides Perth and Hobart, attendances weren't that crash hot, and the broadcast was Fox-only.
But it put a good product together, sought big sponsorships, and pursued it relentlessly despite the roadblocks and financial concerns.
Last season it kicked complete arse in both crowd numbers and ratings. They used every marketing ploy they could - kids get in free etc. etc. and they reaped the rewards with broadcasters clamouring to get a piece of the pie.
Yeah, its cricket, and we're Aussies, so that helps. But there was no guarantee that T20 - which had hardly been embraced by the Aussie public up to that point - was going to win.
Well, they won, and won fucking hard. Rugby has to follow this model, rather than sit around and expect rich old boys to prop the thing up. Because the thing about rich people is they didn't get rich giving their money away.
But it put a good product together, sought big sponsorships, and pursued it relentlessly despite the roadblocks and financial concerns.
Last season it kicked complete arse in both crowd numbers and ratings. They used every marketing ploy they could - kids get in free etc. etc. and they reaped the rewards with broadcasters clamouring to get a piece of the pie.
Yeah, its cricket, and we're Aussies, so that helps. But there was no guarantee that T20 - which had hardly been embraced by the Aussie public up to that point - was going to win.
Well, they won, and won fucking hard. Rugby has to follow this model, rather than sit around and expect rich old boys to prop the thing up. Because the thing about rich people is they didn't get rich giving their money away.
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
What's the alternative?
Incidentally, the Reds Stormers game on Saturday night has been shunted away from the main Fox Sports Channels. Beggars can't be choosers, and, in case you have not noticed, we are the beggars of the Australian winter sporting landscape. I would say we are bloody lucky to get a bit more product onto live television.
'
The last time we got our national competition onto FTA, we paid for the privilege. What has changed since, in your expert opinion?
Getting this competition going, at relatively little overall financial risk to the game as a whole, is a helluva lot better than doing nothing, sitting in a corner, whinging and criticising the powers that be for not being magicians.
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
Dear oh bloody dear.
They should not be mutually exclusive, except for the fact that only Foxtel is interested, apparently.
So I guess that does make them mutually exclusive, after all. Unless you have a different definition, or a way of making rugby more attractive to the masses.
If the pie was growing - or showed any signs of growth - no doubt there might be some hope for FTA coverage. But since we are totally dependent on Fox and SANZAAR to supply the dosh that keeps us on life support, I guess we are stuck with Foxtel.
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
It's actually the other way around. Higher television revenues depends on the game being more popular. Horse before cart, old chap.
They're not. Make the game more attractive first, get a more interesting and competitive club rugby competition, play good attacking and winning rugby at the Soup and Test levels, and in only ten or twenty years we might be in the frame for higher revenues.
Pfitzy
Nathan Sharpe (72)
BBL: Foxtel only, then Channel Ten couldn't wait to snatch a sporting event off them and paid bikkies to do so.
Similarly with rugby. Ten pays now for Test rugby (using everyone else's feed to minimise costs) but could also come along and get into the rest as they go.
FFS we have the soccer for one game a week on SBS and it draws pitiful TV crowds compared to Super Rugby.
Similarly with rugby. Ten pays now for Test rugby (using everyone else's feed to minimise costs) but could also come along and get into the rest as they go.
FFS we have the soccer for one game a week on SBS and it draws pitiful TV crowds compared to Super Rugby.
wamberal
Phil Kearns (64)
Okay, but the A-League is able to offer one game a week to SBS, at the same time every week to suit their schedule. There is no way that SANZAR could, or would, do that.
Plus, all the A-League games, whether on Fox or SBS are in friendly time zones, that's a lot of product.
Finally, the A-League does not have to share revenue with partners. We do.
Super Rugby and the NRC are only going to gain interest amongst the FTA networks if test rugby starts rating better.
The Wallabies are the driving force behind rugby popularity in Australia and they need to increase interest amongst the non rugby tragic public if there is ever likely to be FTA interest in lower levels of the game here.
The Wallabies are the driving force behind rugby popularity in Australia and they need to increase interest amongst the non rugby tragic public if there is ever likely to be FTA interest in lower levels of the game here.
Luvmyrugby
Allen Oxlade (6)
none I guess
who said anything about memberships?
Ill certainly go and watch whenever I can and I would watch every game if it was on TV
who said anything about memberships?
Ill certainly go and watch whenever I can and I would watch every game if it was on TV
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
I guess you could call that a start
Cat_A
Arch Winning (36)
No need Pfitzy - Olympic sports (including rugby) are already funded by the Australian government via (or in conjunction with) the AOC - yes, even the shit ones. The entire Australian Womens' Sevens program is funded from this, as it has been since immediately after the last Olympics. The men receive the same Olympic funding as the women, with extra sponsorship dollars to make Sevens more competitive, remuneration-wise, than Super rugby for the Men's team.
Olympic funding has to be used for Olympic-related purposes - like all government funding it needs to be acquitted and every single government contract I've ever read has a clause prohibiting the use of government funds for debt-reduction purposes.
While I find the Olympic funding models of different countries fascinating, it's boring as buggery for everyone else so I'll refrain.
Given the sponsorship restrictions around Olympics and teams that receive Olympic funding, I can see why Sevens sponsorship isn't as attractive as XVs would be.
Set piece magic
John Solomon (38)
WE should just tell Great Briton that because we're bringing knighthoods back we might as well be part of them again and can we please have some of there Olympic funding... they have been spending it everywhere so why not
- Status