The Awful Truth About The ARU's Financial Position

[RugbyFuture]

as a matter of interest (sorry if its been mentioned before) but what is the TOTAL amount brought in by rugby in australia for broadcast deals including all wallabies and super rugby? Its quite confusing I read about 20 mill but does that include both tiers? it is an incredibly low figure if that is the case.

 

[Pfitzy]

$20 Million isn't a lot. But this is the position rugby put itself in (i.e. positioned ready for doggy style as the catcher) when SuperLeague changed all the rules, and Rugby went with the establishment instead of the "rebel" bid. Player salaries are ridiculously high - for once Masters is right when he says 29% is a big slice of the pie - but the pie itself is way too small.

News came in and bought the game for a steal, because they own all the boundary fences except one highlight reel on ONE at 10.30PM on a Tuesday. Until that changes, Fox dictates the rights to the value of the game. Local FTA TV can do little to change that, because when they buy rights they need to consider RSA as well, and no domestic competition reaches that far. There are precedents in the NRL and AFL to reach towards NZ, and that is the only scenario in which I can see an Australian FTA station getting interested in putting serious bikkies into the pot.

Roy Masters said today in article that Aus rugby could be pretty much done and dusted as a professional game in super rugby by 2020. Not good news at all.

Roy Masters has an agenda to support anything that is Rugby League, and take watery old shit on anything that isn't. I wouldn't be putting much stock in his opinion.

That said, fuck Super Rugby in its current form - as I've (rightly) pointed out, we need to ditch Seffrica. They can go play drudgefest with Europe if they want, and Australia and New Zealand can share RWC victories from here on in.

 

[terry j]

It all boils down to this, IMHO: our game, as we play it, is just not attractive enough to the average punter, except at the very highest level. Last night's two games illustrates a sad point: the New Zealand local derby was great to watch, high standards, lots of wonderful, exciting rugby. The Force Rebels game was dire in comparision, by any standards.

Well, honestly, what is the solution then?

Is there any one of us here who thinks league (as that is where masters is coming from) comes even close to rugby in terms of quality?

For mine, about the only thing comparable is perhaps that we play on similar grounds, just as chess and checkers is.

guess which is which in my opinion. Tho tiddleywinks might be a better description of the entertainment value of league.

This line of thinking can only lead to one conclusion, change the rules (ie make it for morons a la league) by dumbing it down...but that has already been done and is out there in the marketplace.

I agree that, for whatever reason, the aussie games do not come up to the same standard as the kiwi games (maybe because they have the lower tiers? might that gap close with our upcoming lower levels??)

So I, having the relative opinions I have on the merits of the two games, can only then conclude that other factors must be in play. The first that comes to mind is the overwhelming saturation in the media for league vs rugby. (and don't forget people like masters' contribution to that)

Maybe one page of union vs ten or more for league?

So, chicken and egg types of questions now beckon. Ten pages of league cause people to follow league, or ten pages of league because people follow league.

I'd wager that the average punter that follows league has never actually watched a game of union (recall how tribal it all is, take the roar pages as an example), or if they have they have the pre-decided intent to find fault, ie they don't watch with an open mind.

And it is tribal, follow a league team and (as part of the package) automatically hate that other team. That is the foundation of it all. Hence they do not care to watch rugby with an open mind.

(I at least came to rugby from league, so I hope that narrow mindedness that we all have does not apply to me in this particular case)

I mean, take 'a guy' from another country who has never seen either of the games. Watch a few of each, which game would he think the better one? Obviously we are all biased here, but I wonder what the answer would be from a 'survey of a thousand instances'.

We will never know sadly, but I cannot help but think that without growing up on the east coast of australia and so can simply observe the two games without prejudice the answer would be rugby.

If I am anywhere even close to correct with my views then the 'problem' is not the game itself.

God knows tho that I don't have the right answers!

Yes, we all think sometimes that a law or two should be tweaked here or there, but that basic game itself surely has to be sacrosanct?

 

[Train Without a Station]

Maybe.but the NRC is a 3rd tier competition. General sports fans will see it as a super rugby 2nd division. I hope it will be well supported by the hard core rugby base but I'm not sure it will be a big driver of interest for fringe or new fans.

The top domestic tier is where we really need to get the week in, week out competition right. We could easily have a 12 team competition between Australian, NZ and Asian teams with 6 games a week played at ideal times. That would almost double the content valuable to broadcasters without increasing the number of players we have to pay or even the number of matches they play. And teams wouldn't disappear for a couple of weeks every year.

Technically the NRL is a 3rd tier competition. The fact is Australian viewers appear to want to watch Australian teams playing Australian teams.

 

[young gun]

I'd caution about dismissing Roy's column as league propaganda for two reasons:

(1) I remember Roy many many years ago on a league tv forum defending rugby and made the comment, that still rings in my ears, "... I am an unapologetic supporter of international rugby ..." This was when he was coaching and writing, IIRC. Back then there was just club and Internationals and a few inter-states along the way. League commentators always drew the comparison between club league and club rugby to slag rugby out - obviously an apple and oranges comparison. Roy saw through that to the real comparison. He;s smarter than he looks.

and secondly,

(2) the report was written by Paddy Allaway of Saltbush Capital - that's mentioned in the article. For those of you out of nappies in the 1970's / 80's, Allaway played hooker for Sydney Uni and is very much a rugby man - I think he was central to the re-invigoration of rugby at Sydney Uni along with many other notables - David Mortimer, Steve Anthony, Michael Hawker etc. This report is an "intervention" by our own family and needs to be taken seriously.

Personally I think it's a good thing the report was commissioned because, its been done, and secondly, its out in the open so none of us can stick our heads in the sand and pretend it's not happening, because it is.

I have no answers at this stage, but who's going to the Waratahs tonight?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Well if Roy was still coaching when you saw that there was an obvious reason for his interest in international RU: Michael O'Connor - whom he lured to St George where he was coaching.
Together with all those other union internationals that league poached - it was a ready made talent combine, with some notable failures it has to be said - Tony D'arcy and Gareth Morgan spring to mind.
I agree with the wisdom of getting reports from qualified people: I'm afraid Allaway's connections to the establishment in our game do not begin and end with Sydney Uni.
In a sense this link sums up the narrowness of the views that influence Rugby in Australia: spot the WASP, spot the Chairman and spot the CEO, spot the Independent Report writer:
http://www.shoreoldboys.org.au/obu-news-events/2012-events/2012-sydney-sports-day

 

[wamberal]

Well, honestly, what is the solution then?

Is there any one of us here who thinks league (as that is where masters is coming from) comes even close to rugby in terms of quality?

For mine, about the only thing comparable is perhaps that we play on similar grounds, just as chess and checkers is.

guess which is which in my opinion. Tho tiddleywinks might be a better description of the entertainment value of league.

I agree with you, but unfortunately the numbers are against us. I do not have any evidence, just my own personal experience (and observations), but it seems to me that interest in our game is actually declining in several important areas. New Zealand Soup teams are struggling to draw crowds to matches. Interest in the IRB Sevens, which should be going up, seems to be flat-lining at best.

My wife is a classic example: when we came to this country, she had never seen a game of rugby in her life. She quickly started to love it - conversely, she immediately hated loig with a passion. She still loves it, but she does not love watching most of the local derbies, the standards are just too abysmal, she far prefers NZ derbies.

This line of thinking can only lead to one conclusion, change the rules (ie make it for morons a la league) by dumbing it down.but that has already been done and is out there in the marketplace.

No, change the rules to simplify the more complicated aspects of the game, particularly the scrums (no bloody penalties, and absolutely no yellow cards except for foul play thanks), do something to make rolling mauls easier to defend against (why should the ball-carrier not be able to be tackled? This just defies commonsense IMHO), and for goodness sake, let us have a contest for possession that we can all understand and enjoy as part of the game. Sometimes it is, most of the time it is just an untidy shambles. Stop the clock and shorten the playing time.

So, chicken and egg types of questions now beckon. Ten pages of league cause people to follow league, or ten pages of league because people follow league.

Surely you know that answer to that. I have read the SMH on and off for 55 years (the off times being when I was working overseas). Way back then, the coverage was closer to 60/40. Even Shute Shield got full page coverage some days. Slowly, slowly, the popularity of loig increased, so naturally enough, slowly, slowly, the coverage in the press increased to match readership demand. Why on earth would a commercial entity like the SMH not follow consumer demand? Loig is far more popular, there is far more to write about (because there are far more teams in Australia), that is just a commercial reality.

Yes, we all think sometimes that a law or two should be tweaked here or there, but that basic game itself surely has to be sacrosanct?

Well, my honest belief, as a lifetime lover of the game, that we are on borrowed time. The commercial realities in Australia are running against us. We have lost many of our high school breeding grounds (because of the academic pressures in the traditional rugby-playing high schools, and demographic changes as well) and so we have lost a fair bit of potential, high worth, supporters as well.

The game might well be sacrosanct, it might well be heading for a sacrosanct spot in a sancrosact place. The graveyard.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Assuming everything you say is right Wamberal it is only right for Australia and not in the rest of the rugby playing world. In the rest of the world union is booming.
We cannot unilaterally change the laws to compete with loig.

 

[young gun]

Well if Roy was still coaching when you saw that there was an obvious reason for his interest in international RL: Michael O'Connor - whom he lured to St George where he was coaching.
Together with all those other union internationals that league poached - it was a ready made talent combine, with some notable failures it has to be said - Tony D'arcy and Gareth Morgan spring to mind.
I agree with the wisdom of getting reports from qualified people: I'm afraid Allaway's connections to the establishment in our game do not begin and end with Sydney Uni.
In a sense this link sums up the narrowness of the views that influence Rugby in Australia: spot the WASP, spot the Chairman and spot the CEO, spot the Independent Report writer:
http://www.shoreoldboys.org.au/obu-news-events/2012-events/2012-sydney-sports-day

Always good looking at the old boys mag - some good chaps there! I know a few, both the seniors and juniors, although I didn't attend such an august institution, neither did any of my children.

In terms of Roy's interest, you may well be correct, but I think it went beyond that - we'll never know unless he cares to share it with us. I was fully aware of the transfer of players from rugby to league. Actually marked O'Connor once - he shat on me, figuratively speaking. Still a great moment in a lacklustre rugby career.

In terms of the restricted gene pool, not having even a drop of GPS, or CAS, (or any other private school association for that matter) blood in my body. I often wonder about that as well. Generally I think you're right, but this time, as it's from within, and the fact it's such bad news, I think its got strong merit irrespective of the relationship the writer had with the management. It would be different if it said everything's great, just provide more resources for Shores 1st 15, (maybe that's tucked away somewhere in the appendices), but it doesn't, from my limited knowledge based on Roy's article.

I've played, coached, managed and refereed rugby for 50 years, and you can just sense the shift away from the game - its "the vibe", as a great constitutional lawyer once stated. Right now the vibe says "we are $ucked". I think Roy's article may be just the dose of salts required to flush the issues out. I hope so.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Generally I think you're right, but this time, as it's from within, and the fact it's such bad news, I think its got strong merit irrespective of the relationship the writer had with the management.

But the bad news is the tune that RUPA wanted to hear so the ARU, for one, would be justified in questioning the report's worth.
Pulver has just fielded some questions from the ABC Shute Shield team: i interpreted his comments to quite openly blame his predecessor for the lack of free to air coverage.

 

[Omar Comin']

I think the reason Australian derby matches are less entertaining is because of the mindset of our teams. They all go out to spoil the ball as much as possible. Slow, tactical penalty fests result. Our teams are less willing to counter attack from deep or play with adventure when playing against each other. It sucks. I'm not sure what the solution is other than law changes to speed up the game. The players and coaches need to realise their livelihoods depend on people wanting to watch them.

Technically the NRL is a 3rd tier competition. The fact is Australian viewers appear to want to watch Australian teams playing Australian teams.

The difference is the NRL involves all the top players, and the top players sell the game. The NRC will not involve the most marketable players in the country, and will be similar to super rugby but lower quality.

Hey I'd love to be wrong. I'd love for it to average 5-10k crowds and get 100k viewers on Fox each match. Who knows, maybe after the NRL finishes it might get some decent numbers. But that would require thrilling rugby on the field and some clever promotion.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Oh I agree it won't be the exact same thing. But it is a step in the direction of having 175 more professional players, 9 more professional teams and 75 more professional games which can be broadcast.

Initially these players will only be part time pros but if it can be marketed well, the demand will be able to drive a longer season, more content and more revenue for player salaries.

But it hasn't to be marketed right. Rugby and the rugby media is absolutely shithouse for this and only want to bang on about how fucked the game is. How many boring Saturday night games of NRL have you heard that painstakingly annoying fox sports commentator yell "FI-FITA" as some other bloke makes a poor missed tackle in a 36-38 game with impossible to comprehend tackle and obstruction rulings and everybody bangs on about this great attacking and entertaining game.

The same thing happens in rugby and people want to say how shit the defence was, how shit the rules are and how fucked the game is going.

People employed by the game and media constantly go on about how great league is and people think it's great. Vice versa with rugby.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Oh I agree it won't be the exact same thing. But it is a step in the direction of having 175 more professional players, 9 more professional teams and 75 more professional games which can be broadcast.

Initially these players will only be part time pros but if it can be marketed well, the demand will be able to drive a longer season, more content and more revenue for player salaries.

But it hasn't to be marketed right. Rugby and the rugby media is absolutely shithouse for this and only want to bang on about how fucked the game is. How many boring Saturday night games of NRL have you heard that painstakingly annoying fox sports commentator yell "FI-FITA" as some other bloke makes a poor missed tackle in a 36-38 game with impossible to comprehend tackle and obstruction rulings and everybody bangs on about this great attacking and entertaining game.

The same thing happens in rugby and people want to say how shit the defence was, how shit the rules are and how fucked the game is going.

People employed by the game and media constantly go on about how great league is and people think it's great. Vice versa with rugby.

Nail. On. Head. That's probably the biggest issue with the game in Australia. Everyone connected to it is just too damn negative. Always talking it down. It is magnitudes better than League but those connected to it hype it up to almost sickening levels and the public lap it up. Many of our 'rugby journalists' need a good kick in the pants in this respect.

 

[Omar Comin']

I don't know if you guys ever listen to sports talk back radio, but rugby league fans are just as negative about absolutely everything. Poor crowds, refereeing, their commentators, tactics (especially 'wrestling' and whatever new style of bone breaking tackle they've invented). The whole sport feeds off it.

I don't think rugby is struggling because of negativity. I think the negativity happens because the game is struggling. It will take a lot more than people talking up the game to turn things around.

 

[Quick Hands]

rugby media is absolutely shithouse for this and only want to bang on about how fucked the game is.

I have to disagree with this WCR, the rugby media is the most lazy and sycophantic of any sport in Australia. Rarely are the administrators asked to front up to hard interviews or held to account for their shortcomings. No rugby journo pursued the rubbery participation figures in 2013 or took the ARU to task over the $200 levy on kids.

Watch the Fox league programme and the rugby programme one week if you want to compare - yes league journos have a pro-league bias, but they don't mind criticising if its needed, but I don't remember the last critical analysis of rugby by a rugby journo.

If you think that league journos aren't negative about the game, you need to read more. League is resilient to this negativity and it means that league officials and administrators are held to account. The Israel Folau fiasco would never have been allowed to happen in league (Pulver would have been hung, drawn and quartered by the league press if he were CEO of the NRL) nor would some of the diabolical refereeing we see at super level be ignored by the refereeing authorities. (Think Glen Jackson - he'd be lucky to hold the interchange cards in the NRL after some of his refereeing performances)

 

[Inside Shoulder]

rugby media is absolutely shithouse for this and only want to bang on about how fucked the game is.

I have to disagree with this WCR, the rugby media is the most lazy and sycophantic of any sport in Australia. Rarely are the administrators asked to front up to hard interviews or held to account for their shortcomings. No rugby journo pursued the rubbery participation figures in 2013 or took the ARU to task over the $200 levy on kids.

Watch the Fox league programme and the rugby programme one week if you want to compare - yes league journos have a pro-league bias, but they don't mind criticising if its needed, but I don't remember the last critical analysis of rugby by a rugby journo.

If you think that league journos aren't negative about the game, you need to read more. League is resilient to this negativity and it means that league officials and administrators are held to account. The Israel Folau fiasco would never have been allowed to happen in league (Pulver would have been hung, drawn and quartered by the league press if he were CEO of the NRL) nor would some of the diabolical refereeing we see at super level be ignored by the refereeing authorities. (Think Glen Jackson - he'd be lucky to hold the interchange cards in the NRL after some of his refereeing performances)

I would add that if you saw Al Baxter - an non-journalist - interviewing Pulver today you realises (a) how soft the other journos are on him when he goes on Rugby HQ and (b) that he is usually given all the questions before he goes on air because he was wrong footed today.

 

[Quick Hands]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who's noticed.

And you could add (c) if he isn't giving the scripted answers, Clarkey et al provide a leading question, almost in the form of a statement to which Pulver merely has to give agreement.

 

[Train Without a Station]

You can't compare the Folau situation to league. Apples and Oranges. The NRL has no interest in the actual players as they ARU do with the wallabies and central contracting.

The best comparison would be cricket where this in fact does happen and Australian players have been pulled out mid game from shield matches.

 

[Pfitzy]

Those who say that the Rugby League media AREN'T a bunch of ring-licking yes-men have but to read the title of this article:

http://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/wh...ames-this-season/story-fndujljl-1226881528052

What’s with all the exciting, low-scoring games this season?

You fucking WHAT?

This is a community - including the fans - who will absolutely crucify "Yawnion" for being boring, having too many kicks, and not enough skill or points scoring. Meanwhile there are a pile of NRL games this season ending up in low scoring drudgefests where the same thing happens every six tackles. The difference this year is the tactic of kick-n-hope once you're inside the 20 fails miserably, due to better aerial skills and attacking lines utterly devoid of ideas beyond dummy runners that are well into obstruction territory.

The reason Loig fans ring up and whinge about things is because they're SPORTS FANS. Its not because they think their game is shit. And like any element of bogan culture, if you criticise something obviously wrong with what they like, they will fire right up and call you a poof (soccer), a girl (AFL), or a wanker (union).

They - and their media - will defend the game itself despite it having advanced no distance over several years. But they reserve the right to criticise certain aspects of it, particularly "personalities" like Gus Gould (ugh I feel unclean now). Go read any one of his articles and usually its negative, but about ONE aspect of the game; perhaps an incident or a referee.

Its a fucking smokescreen - by putting down one part of their shittily boring game, he's holding up a complete other element as righteous and unquestionable. And Loig fans suck that shit up like its Jim Beam and coke.

Our media has been undoubtedly negative as a rule but that's because in our crowded football market, the only thing that gets attention is controversy. Since Greg Growden disappeared up ESPN's overfunded shit canal things are a lot better with Georgina Robinson in particular. She actually writes about the game, not the fucking pies on offer at particular club grounds, or the supposed politics of a back room "contacts" who don't even fucking exist.

As an example: I was getting a rego inspection done the other day, and picked up the Telegraph. The back 8 pages where all NRL. It was a fucking Tuesday! There is all sorts of analysis done and the fans are convinced the game is more complex than it so obviously is. Lots of pictures though, which explains the Loig mentality.

But if you ever hear a State Of Origin commentary, and have Gus Gould scream down the microphone "THAT WAS AN ORIGIN TACKLE!" or "THAT WAS AN ORIGIN PASS!" you swiftly realise what you're up against: a massive hype machine that understands its limitations, but serves up the same product over and over again to a fan base that is ingrained through blood and marketing.

Because that is the thing about league - like McDonalds, it serves up the same shit every single time. It does it consistently. It doesn't matter if you order a cheeseburger in Campbelltown, Canberra, or Townsville, it will taste the same and feed the little sugar and fat receptors in your brain. It won't make you any smarter, and will slowly kill you, but if you're told enough times its fun and contains good Aussie Beef, you ultimately don't care.

 

[Pfitzy]

As for how we get the game firing again - unfortunately it starts at the top, and the Wallabies need to give us something to believe in. You can't blame the Tahs for not having FTA TV coverage.

At the same time, we need to understand that Law changes aren't going to hold benefit for anyone outside Australia. No-one in the 6N, and our SANZAR partners, give a flying fuck that we're up against it here, and nor should they as they have their own fields to plough.

But here's the thing: it isn't the Laws that hold the game back, its the ways (plural) in which they're interpreted. Refs need to stop fucking around when it comes to yellow and red cards. They need to set a standard early in the game so that we have a faster, cleaner product. There is nothing wrong with the core of it, just that the messy edges need cutting away.

The Law book could be simplified, sure, but at the end of the day the men with the whistle need more support in order to improve their game, and the balls to reign in the higher level of professionalism the players have over them.