The Awful Truth About The ARU's Financial Position

[wamberal]

These codes have lived within their means though. Based on repeated losses and only 1 super franchise turning a profit, the ARU isn't.

The NRL is financially healthy because the game itself is a popular spectacle. It has certainly been much more popular than rugby for the whole of my life, and that is a long time. They also had a huge boost (in NSW, which is where the growth really started) from poker machine revenue.

How they got into healthy financial positions is long term planning.

The AFL has been far better at planning. ARL/NRL/ NSWRL franchises have gone broke quite a few times.

By far the biggest single factor in their financial health is the obvious fact that both games totally control their own rule books, so they are able to tailor their offering to meet local tastes.

AFL, formerly VFL, is totally interwoven with the popular culture of the whole of Southern Australia, and has been for 100 years.

 

[Luvmyrugby]

because they see it

 

[wamberal]

because they see it

Because they watch it, actually. And because they play it as kids. VFL was enormously popular, and financially successful, before television.

Most Victorians grow up supporting a team. That lifelong support translates into very high membership and attendance figures, always has.

The other AFL states follow suit, to a certain extent.

Australians have demonstrated conclusively that, on the whole, and over a very long period of time, they prefer loig and Australian football. Since long before the advent of television. Professionalism has been part of that popularity, but only a part.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Because they watch it, actually. And because they play it as kids. VFL was enormously popular, and financially successful, before television.

Most Victorians grow up supporting a team. That lifelong support translates into very high membership and attendance figures, always has.

The other AFL states follow suit, to a certain extent.

Australians have demonstrated conclusively that, on the whole, and over a very long period of time, they prefer loig and Australian football. Since long before the advent of television. Professionalism has been part of that popularity, but only a part.

I agree with most of this.
AFL is a little less clear in that NSW and QLD seem to have embraced it in the TV era and from what I am told of loig in Western Sydney the troops on the ground (i.e. volunteers running the junior clubs) feel they are getting beaten in every facet of recruitment, development and retention by the AFL.

 

[wamberal]

The point I was trying to make about the financial position that the AFL (in particular) enjoys is that it is wealthy primarily because of its heritage, especially in Victoria.

Of course the popularity of the game has increased in other states, partly because of television, partly because the VFL was astute enough to go national back in the early eighties. They were the first code to go for a national competition.

Yes, they have had good management for many years. Plus it is a game that has always appealed to a wide demographic, male, female, young and old, working class, the blue bloods, everybody in Victoria follows a team (or at least, they used to when I worked there!)

It was certainly being played in Queensland and NSW before the advent of television. Not to the same extent, or same degree of popularity, of course.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

But the TV deal they have dwarfs the money that it was in the game prior to pay TV, even allowing for inflation.
The Swans came to Sydney because they were busted as South Melbourne.
Fitzroy became the Brisbane Lions for the same reason.
Richmond were in huge financial trouble for a long time.
So I am not sure that you can attribute the present massive wealth in AFL to "heritage".

 

[Quick Hands]

You probably can't put it all down to heritage, but I wouldn't underestimate the cultural factor. My perception is that in Victoria at least, Aussie Rules forms part of the culture in the same way that rugby does in NZ. That's a huge advantage and with highly astute administration they've been able to take advantage of it. There's simply no correlation to anything in NSW.

I remember one year I went down to Melbourne for a Bledisloe at the MCG. An Indian cabbie picked us up from the airport and immediately wanted to talk Aussie Rules, who we supported, what did we think was going to happen that weekend. He didn't even realise (like many Victorians) that there was a difference between league and union. On the Sunday after the rugby I caught a tram into the city and went to the Aussie Rules match at the MCG. Sitting in front of me were a group of about 4 or 5, 12 or 13 year olds. One of them asked about the Bledisloe and the answer came back from his mates, it was alright, but not as good as footy.

On another work trip, I was in Ballarat in early December which happened to be the day of the AFL draft. All anyone could talk about was who was going where - it was even live on TV in the pub.

That weekend in Melbourne and my couple of days in Ballarat confirmed to me that no sport will ever displace Aussie Rules from No.1 in Victoria. In fact, cricket is going backwards against it in Victoria and they don't even play in the same season.

 

[I like to watch]

But the TV deal they have dwarfs the money that it was in the game prior to pay TV, even allowing for inflation.
The Swans came to Sydney because they were busted as South Melbourne.
Fitzroy became the Brisbane Lions for the same reason.
Richmond were in huge financial trouble for a long time.
So I am not sure that you can attribute the present massive wealth in AFL to "heritage".

Agree,
If anything, the massive growth in the game can be traced back to when these "traditional" clubs were transplanted into enemy territory,to give the game a National presence.

 

[wamberal]

Agree,
If anything, the massive growth in the game can be traced back to when these "traditional" clubs were transplanted into enemy territory,to give the game a National presence.

Well, yes. The strength of the game in Victoria (its "heritage") was such that it was able to take what was, at the time, seen as a considerable gamble - to expand to a national competition. That cost money, and other forms of capital (including the pain of people losing their local clubs). They were speculating that national advertisers would pay more for a national competition. That turned out to be correct.


Without a solid base, such a strong heritage, how could the game have grown? The game has always been so widely supported, so entrenched at all levels of society, that it is strong enough to take risks. The strong can take risks, the weak cannot.


Incidentally, in an incoming tide all boats rise. There has a huge increase in advertising revenues for commercial television over the last 30 or more years, the AFL and NRL have been positioned to exploit that. Not to mention the advent of cable, which also helped the tide rise.

 

[I like to watch]

I think you overstating the success of AFL at the time.
There were several clubs in financial trouble at that time.
Players were semi professional,all of them had full times jobs outside of footy.
Absolutely their heritage was strong,but that was not reflected by financial results.
I agree with the other points you raise.

 

[Quick Hands]

I think we all accept that rugby will never challenge AFL or NRL in this country. Not in the foreseeable future anyway.

What we can do is learn from other sports what sort of things work and what sort of strategies are successful.

AFL has not only significant resources and a supporter base 2nd to none in this country, but it has also had an administration far ahead of all other sports in this country. That doesn't mean they haven't made mistakes, but they've had a clarity of purpose, a longstanding vision of what they want to achieve and a long term clearly thought out strategy.

The AFL/VFL brought in an independent commission way back in 1985 to run the game. The purpose was to remove decision making from the petty power struggles and the self interest of individual clubs so that they could advance the game.

Soccer used to be a basket case in this country with an administration which made the NSWRU/ARU look like geniuses, but guess what - they've sorted themselves out. We all used to have a bit of a giggle about the way soccer was run on ethnic lines etc. - no-one in rugby is laughing now. 40,000 at the SFS last night to watch a soccer match Sydney v Western Sydney - who'd have predicted that 20 years ago? Not even the most rabid soccer fan I'd suggest. Meanwhile we get 18,000 for NSW v QLD.

It is possible for rugby to turn things around, but I'm yet to see any appetite for radical change amongst those in authority. Bill Pulver is doing some good things, but I'd suggest that as long as almost the entire NSWRU board is made up of GPS old boys we're kidding ourselves.

Amateur era officials had an excuse, they were doing their best part time, but we now have highly paid executives in place.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I think you overstating the success of AFL at the time.
There were several clubs in financial trouble at that time.
Players were semi professional,all of them had full times jobs outside of footy.
Absolutely their heritage was strong,but that was not reflected by financial results.
I agree with the other points you raise.

ILTW, don't confuse the poor management of the clubs with the health of the game nationally at the time. Even in QLD back to the 70s there was strong AFL competitions in QLD.

By the time of the Lions success in QLD, there was 4 divisions in SEQ alone with 8-12 teams in each.

 

[Joe King]

I don't think rugby should be trying to compete against the other codes as the main focus. When you do that, you just make reactionary moves, and produce short-term solutions.

Rugby in Aus should just focus on being the best that rugby can be in Aus. We need long-term strategies, a clear vision for rugby to aim at, and the best structures for the fans, casual spectators, and parents to access and engage with and ENJOY.

The ARU can't go crazy, and does need to be sensible with finances, but if I knew what the ARU was aiming at, I would be happy for them to take one step back if it meant we would be taking two steps fwd down the track.

 

[Quick Hands]

This is the problem JK; does anyone know what the ARU is aiming at? (Short, medium and long term) I don't even think they know.

EDIT:
They might like to try a few of these:

Re-establish rugby in areas where participation* has plummeted (Parramatta JRU area for one)

Strategy to establish village junior clubs in areas where none currently exist (SW Sydney, Greater Penrith)

Administrative reform to a multi-layered, complex and confused bordering on dysfunctional structure

Make boards or commissions independent of the petty squabbles and self-interest, so that they can make decisions with short, medium and long term objectives in mind

Strive to make boards and committees representative of the community at large, not just an extension of the GPS community

Leave schools to their own devices - they are going well and don't need ARU help

Reassert control over our development structure by having a club based development model which is at least the equal of school rugby

* By participation, I mean real participation levels, not double and triple counting people or by including boys/girls who play one game of rugby in a local gala day in the figures

 

[Hugie]

QH,

Maybe you meant "Leave GPS, CAS and ISA to their own devices they are going well and don't need ARU help." That covers about 5% of the schoolboys in NSW and QLD.

The schools system is a disaster, any view of the shift in the make up of the Australian Schoolboys team should ring alarm bells load and clear.

When League markets itself as "Our game" they have a good point.

 

[Quick Hands]

Hugie,

I did mean the GPS, CAS, ISA and equivalents in Qld and elsewhere.

CHS rugby is it dire need of help, but this goes hand in hand with having boys playing club rugby within the catchment area of various schools. Realistically that is how the ARU promote rugby in the state system.

The ARU may not be able to do much to help CHS as part of the problem is the lack of teachers in those schools who are capable of coaching rugby. I don't mind giving the ARU some criticism, but the situation in state schools is largely out of their control now. Maybe they could have provided support when the CHS zones ran competitions, but these have largely disappeared.

The NSW Dept of Education have no interest in which games are played in schools, as long as some sport is going on. Around here most state high schools (and primary schools) play soccer and touch football in winter and there is also a local primary school league competition. No state schools in this area go in the Waratah Shield any more and not many even go in the Waratah Cup.

 

[Hugie]

We are having an agreement fest here. Don't forget CCC which is in the CHS category.

The problem in my view is that there are two entirely different objectives. One to promote very good, well trained players in front of scouts and selectors. The other to get boys and girls to play rugby.

They have to be viewed, managed, resourced and performance measured entirely differently.

The current problem has arisen by lumping the two together and only measuring against one objective (the other then drifts).

We then loose the supporters, crowd, TV viewers, mechanise buyers of the future (who tend to be people who played rugby as a kid, or married one, rugby tragics).

 

[Hugh Jarse]

While we aren't forgetting the CCC (Catholic) system, along with the CHS (State High Schools), also keep the AICES (Private) and Div 3 ISA schools in mind for ARU development. The AICES system gave us Matt Dunning.

Any kid going to CHS, CCC, AICES, or Div 3 ISA schools is largely going to be ignored by the ARU, unless they are an awesomely talented Club player, in which case they often come to the attention of the Scouts at the schools with more established and resourced rugby programmes.

 

[Quick Hands]

The more participants we have, the more players we will have vying for selection in higher teams, but participation is the key. The larger the base of the pyramid, the stronger the game.

All sports need participants and those aspiring to the elite level, we seem to have lost that nexus somewhere.

 

[Quick Hands]

Much of this is also being discussed on the Decline of Sydney Juniors thread.

Parramatta JRU were a significant force in the 70s both in terms of participation and representative players, but now clubs either don't exist or have a couple of minis teams. We can't blame declining youth population in that part of Sydney like we can in the East or North East.