The Awful Truth About The ARU's Financial Position

[Quick Hands]

The city clubs have more of a chance of making this a goer though.
Norths is for sale or may even have been sold - so thats the 2nd time round that block for them: https://www.raywhite.com/first-time-offered-in-over-20-years-80-christie-street-st-leonards/

I remember when Norths Rugby Club had premises in Alfred St North Sydney. The former site is now residential apartments. The footbridge from the end of Ridge St near North Sydney Oval, across the expressway to Alfred St is all that remains to remind us of the rugby club - which used to boast squash courts, function room and a fantastic view. The sale of these premises was to be the financial saviour of Norths Rugby.

 

[Quick Hands]

If the next generation isn't interested in going to a current style club, perhaps find out what interests them and design a club to suit them. Wood panelling, beer stained carpets, crappy fixtures aren't that enticing.

If it's in the CBD perhaps build in decent meeting rooms to hire out and provide good catering. There aren't many great serviced meeting places in the north of the CBD.

For some reason, the youth of today prefer to pay $10 plus for a beer at some boutique bar than half that at a club.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I remember when Norths Rugby Club had premises in Alfred St North Sydney. The former site is now residential apartments. The footbridge from the end of Ridge St near North Sydney Oval, across the expressway to Alfred St is all that remains to remind us of the rugby club - which used to boast squash courts, function room and a fantastic view. The sale of these premises was to be the financial saviour of Norths Rugby.

Sydney harbour - the only harbour in the world with a view of norths rugby club

 

[Crashy]

Norths have successfully sold Cabana Bar for some profit. I think the funds will be held in a foundation which can't be touched.
The clubhouse is now part of the Union Hotel about 150 metres from NSO.

Btw The Rugby Club exchanged contracts, received $2.1 million in cash and are now debt free with $1 mil in the bank. They'll receive the remainder in 12 months time and will operate out of the premesis for 2 years I think. This will give them plenty of time to find a new location and I understand they wish to set up new digs close to the existing club and preferably with street frontage.
The club has been profitable over the last couple of years and is a jewell in the Sydney drinking scene.

 

[Crashy]

It seems in Shute Shield land, the best way to secure a club's future is via a foundation rather than attempting to play publican. Far less risk and you simply ask punters for a tax deductible donation. Uni have about $3 mil in theirs and I think Manly's new one has raised $300 so far.
Makes sense to me.

 

[Quick Hands]

Any organisation basing prosperity and success on the operation of a licenced club will most likely fail. It wasn't always so, but that seems to be the reality of the 21st century.

 

[Lindommer]

"profitable", "jewel", dunno about either of those qualities, Crashy. The $1mill overdraft came about due to poor trading history over the last decade, including the recent past, and the building's dated and daggy. Maybe reminiscent of an elderly relative's antique emerald rings, perhaps.

The Rugby Club had no choice other than to accept the offer to sell the premises; over the next few years there's going to be a major development of the properties around that corner of George, Alfred and Pitt Streets. If the club didn't take the money they would've run the risk of either existing in its current, outdated guise forever or compulsory acquisition. This move's a positive one for the club, the next one's going to be quite challenging.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I can't follow this - who can explain it?
Rupert must have jet lag or a hernia
"And now, as reported in Monday's Australian Financial Review, the Australian Rugby Union is set to sign a new SANZAR broadcasting deal, reportedly increasing from $175 million to $200 million over five years.
But there is a hitch, the report says ... the deal is not the success it may be portrayed as with the value not due to a rise in the sale of domestic rights.
Instead, the rise is due to the ARU's share of international rights in the United Kingdom where Sky Sports fought off a challenge from BT Sport, owned by telecommunications company BT Group.
The Australian Financial Review reports that Fox Sports Australia and Ten Network Holdings will retain their rights after Super Rugby in Australia failed to attract the free-to-air interest in ARU chief executive Bill Pulver's pitch to air one game per week.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/a...-for-rugby-20141006-10qz62.html#ixzz3FORB4qEA"

Is this just more having a bleat for the sake of it?
The deal is not a patch on the AFL but why would itbe.

 

[Slim 293]

For some reason, the youth of today prefer to pay $10 plus for a beer at some boutique bar than half that at a club.

It's not just the youths.........

 

[TahDan]

Is this just more having a bleat for the sake of it?
The deal is not a patch on the AFL but why would itbe.

Mate, according to Georgina Robinson at the SMH a few months back, Pulver went to RUPA and the heads of the state unions and told them how the change in the Super Rugby model to the new, beyond stupid model the Yarpies wanted would give them all a lot more cash.

She had said that the projections he showed sufficiently impressed everyone to go ahead with a logic defying plan.

Now, in that context this looks like Pulver has no clue.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Mate, according to Georgina Robinson at the SMH a few months back, Pulver went to RUPA and the heads of the state unions and told them how the change in the Super Rugby model to the new, beyond stupid model the Yarpies wanted would give them all a lot more cash.

She had said that the projections he showed sufficiently impressed everyone to go ahead with a logic defying plan.

Now, in that context this looks like Pulver has no clue.

According to Roy Masters the previous deal was for $25m p.a. so the Pulveriser has managed to jag 60% more. That seems OK to me.
How is the comp to be different so as to make this illusory?

 

[Pfitzy]

Someone help me out:

In what universe are more than zero fucks given about WHERE the money comes from? The money is there. Its not as healthy as we might like, but then neither is my bank balance.

Mate, according to Georgina Robinson at the SMH a few months back, Pulver went to RUPA and the heads of the state unions and told them how the change in the Super Rugby model to the new, beyond stupid model the Yarpies wanted would give them all a lot more cash.

She had said that the projections he showed sufficiently impressed everyone to go ahead with a logic defying plan.

Now, in that context this looks like Pulver has no clue.

So, using their political and financial might, the mighty ARU was supposed to tell everyone else in SANZAR to fuck off because we weren't getting ENOUGH money?



A lot of people are really into Pulver around here when all he's done is try to help the game.

 

[boyo]

For some reason, the youth of today prefer to pay $10 plus for a beer at some boutique bar than half that at a club.

This supposes that the said beer is available at said club.

 

[TahDan]

According to Roy Masters the previous deal was for $25m p.a. so the Pulveriser has managed to jag 60% more. That seems OK to me.
How is the comp to be different so as to make this illusory?

The TV dollars from Australian broadcasters are completely unchanged (which is a loss in reality when you factor in inflation) and the overall package is only a 14% increase and it comes from the UK rights. That's not much of an improvement...

So, using their political and financial might, the mighty ARU was supposed to tell everyone else in SANZAR to fuck off because we weren't getting ENOUGH money?

No. But considering the TV dollars are almost completely unchanged bar a UK TV deal that likely would have happened anyway, they could have said "we vote for the status quo". The change of structure was given approval on the basis the code would get a significant TV deal increase, but that didn't happen so why the fuck are we doing it?

The new format will kill support further and the next deal may well earn less.

 

[Pfitzy]

No. But considering the TV dollars are almost completely unchanged bar a UK TV deal that likely would have happened anyway, they could have said "we vote for the status quo".

South Africa made all this noise about more teams.
Argentina nodded furiously in agreement.
New Zealand hesitated, and nodded firmly with no facial expression.
Singapore and Japan jumped up and down and started yelling "PICK ME!"

What were the ARU supposed to achieve by voting "no"?

Its all well and good to make a stand, but when you're bringing a knife to a gun fight, better to just put it down and make the best of it.

 

[TahDan]

South Africa made all this noise about more teams.
Argentina nodded furiously in agreement.
New Zealand hesitated, and nodded firmly with no facial expression.
Singapore and Japan jumped up and down and started yelling "PICK ME!"

What were the ARU supposed to achieve by voting "no"?

Its all well and good to make a stand, but when you're bringing a knife to a gun fight, better to just put it down and make the best of it.

If we'd have made a stand it would have been nice, but we didn't did we? RUPA offered a model, but the ARU never had the guts to back it up. This model will see the code destined for further and further marginalisation in this country and the losses will continue to mount.

The NRL this year scored record ratings for the first two Origins and their GF. Heck, they're even outrating the bloody AFL now! We're losing ground and this half-baked bullshit from SANZAR is a sure fire way to ensure we continue doing so.

Which leads me to this point of yours from before:

Someone help me out:

In what universe are more than zero fucks given about WHERE the money comes from? The money is there. Its not as healthy as we might like, but then neither is my bank balance.

In this one. The amount of money Australian broadcasters are willing to give to the game is directly correlated with the level of interest the game holds for the Australian public. It being stagnant is a sign that the networks here have no interest in offering a cent more than they did 5 years ago, when the same amount was actually worth more. That's a bad fucking sign and it's something we should be concerned about.

We desperately needed two things: FTA coverage for at least some Super Rugby, and an increase in interest for the code via more cash on offer overall. We got neither. We've gone backwards.

 

[Braveheart81]

That is rugby's reality though. It isn't that popular in Australia but it is a big sport on the world stage, we're one of the best countries at it and to a certain degree we have to compete in that global market for money and players.

Australian Rugby can't afford to take a pay cut to have a better local product to sell because very quickly our best players will decide that earning half what they currently are to remain in Australia and play for the Wallabies isn't worth it.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Unusually for me I take the optimistic view that more $$ is what matters because it presumably provides some opportunity for things to get better in terms of what is provided for the grass roots which is the future of the game.
We will never beat league at its own game: do we want to? We want to provide the rugby ethos to as as many people as we can and those who can't or wont drink from the cup can please themselves by watching a bloke play for 80 minutes with a fractured cheek bone without the medical staff even thinking "i wonder if this is risky".
We should play to our strengths and not chase the lowest common denominator.

 

[Strewthcobber]

We will never beat league at its own game: do we want to? We want to provide the rugby ethos to as as many people as we can and those who can't or wont drink from the cup can please themselves by watching a bloke play for 80 minutes with a fractured cheek bone without the medical staff even thinking "i wonder if this is risky".
We should play to our strengths and not chase the lowest common denominator.

Unfortunately, all moral high ground was conceded when George Smith ran back onto the field against the Lions

 

[Pfitzy]

That is rugby's reality though.

Its a shame that some can't accept this reality.


For the rest of you:

Much like our situation in 1999-2001, where the Wallabies were the national team of pride, people think that it should always be thus. Beating the All Blacks, massive public profile, Lions Series win etc.

We had rugby on FTA back then in fact - there was a very late night replay of a Tahs/Reds/Brumbies game around this time on Channel 7. But despite the national success, the Super Rugby games on FTA still didn't really rate, which is why Channel 7 eventually ditched it.

I would also argue that they did themselves no favours by putting on after 10PM on a Friday/Saturday night, but that was their choice (because it was their money).

Through all of this we were still beholden to SANZAR, just that we could give less fucks about it on the back of the Wallabies.

Super Rugby:

• is not a domestic product that we can leverage.
• cannot have its structure dictated by one nation like the A-League, NRL and AFL do.
• can't tweak its own Laws whenever it likes, because they belong to a higher power.

Why can't anyone grasp these key differences?
How fucking arrogant is it that people think we should just do this or do that?
Aha! A convenient example:

RUPA offered a model, but the ARU never had the guts to back it up.

RUPA is the organisation that spent most of its time in the professional era fighting the ARU for a bigger slice of the pie, and is therefore one of the major reasons the ARU finds itself in this situation both in terms of finance and public profile.

If SANZAR are quite happy to nod politely while listening to the ARU, and then completely ignore their input, then RUPA aren't even a flea on the ARU's arse when it comes to gravity of argument. In fact, I'll guarantee you that the South African rugby union gives less then zero shits what the Aussie Players' Union thinks.

How does the ARU in any way stand to gain from backing that model? Politically, its suicide.

The NZRFU is going to go with whatever gives them the most money, because the only part of their operation that turns a profit is the massive sponsorship of the All Blacks. They've maximised their market and need SANZAR as much as we do. That means agreeing with South Africa.

Argentina need pro rugby more than anyone, to get themselves up the ladder and stop tugging their forelock to French Rugby.

You can spray your juices all you want about how this is wrong or that is wrong, but ultimately the FTA product we DO have - the Wallabies - needs to be a fuckload better before we can consider taking on the world.


Honestly, its like every time I step into this thread or the one about Broadcast rights, I'm in the fucking matrix or something; all the logic I'm spewing is seen as some kind of fucking construct.

Everyone is styling themselves as Neo, flying around this alternate reality. Wake up and smell the ashes, then start digging.