The Pulverisation of Australian Rugby

[Inside Shoulder]

Without a professional game, over time, rugby numbers would diminish. It may be slow, but it would be a slow death.

Well in this case, perhaps it's no different?

It survived for 100 years with no professional game.
And despite the layers of bureaucracy that have been riveted onto the amateur structure its financial well being is just as it was for most of those 100 years: maybe the NZRU will bail us out again.

 

[Train Without a Station]

It survived for 100 years with no professional game.
And despite the layers of bureaucracy that have been riveted onto the amateur structure its financial well being is just as it was for most of those 100 years: maybe the NZRU will bail us out again.

There was also less competition for those 100 years IS. Even then the game had product equivalent to the "professional games". In 2014, any code not on TV will be drowned out by those that are.

If rugby is not on the TV, not in the newspaper, not discussed on the news, how do kids decided to watch it and then want to play it? People don't go to watch local sport like they once did.

Sure because you're a rugby man you take your son to play rugby. But what happens when all his friends are playing other sports? Eventually he does to something else and there's nobody coming back the other way to rugby because for the majority of the population, it seemingly doesn't exist. When all they're seeing is NRL, AFL, Soccer, Cricket, etc. Rugby would slowly diminish.

 

[I like to watch]

It's not just without Wallabies ILTW. Super Rugby is propped up by the Wallabies financially too. Without a professional presence and the profile it brings the game would likely diminish eventually to the level of sports like Basketball, etc.

I'm not so sure the ARU props up Soup.
They get a fucking big chq for TV rights for the soup comp and pass it on to each franchise after clipping the ticket.

 

[Train Without a Station]

ILTW isn't the current TV Rights $25M in total. They are giving out $5M to the franchises to cover salaries as it is. That's the entirety of the TV Rights including Wallabies games, from my understanding.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

There was also less competition for those 100 years IS. Even then the game had product equivalent to the "professional games". In 2014, any code not on TV will be drowned out by those that are.

If rugby is not on the TV, not in the newspaper, not discussed on the news, how do kids decided to watch it and then want to play it? People don't go to watch local sport like they once did.

Sure because you're a rugby man you take your son to play rugby. But what happens when all his friends are playing other sports? Eventually he does to something else and there's nobody coming back the other way to rugby because for the majority of the population, it seemingly doesn't exist. When all they're seeing is NRL, AFL, Soccer, Cricket, etc. Rugby would slowly diminish.

You miss the point: we only need this money to prop up the professional end of the game. They need all these hangers on and are telling us there is nothing left for the levels to whom they owe their existence. and then they raid the coffers of the junior clubs: on what possible basis to they have that right?
Their beds have been feathered by professionalism but no one else sees any benefit from it.
And the number of players point is bullshit: the game is in decline and yet the revenue goes up: a 60% increase from next year and yet it is all to be kept for those who are paid to play or administer.

 

[I like to watch]

ILTW isn't the current TV Rights $25M in total. They are giving out $5M to the franchises to cover salaries as it is. That's the entirety of the TV Rights including Wallabies games, from my understanding.

True,but the Soup franchises wear the lions share of player costs.
What would be the total salaries for everyone who wore a Gold jumper last year?
How much of this were ARU top ups?

 

[I like to watch]

You miss the point: we only need this money to prop up the professional end of the game. They need all these hangers on and are telling us there is nothing left for the levels to whom they owe their existence. and then they raid the coffers of the junior clubs: on what possible basis to they have that right?
Their beds have been feathered by professionalism but no one else sees any benefit from it.
And the number of players point is bullshit: the game is in decline and yet the revenue goes up: a 60% increase from next year and yet it is all to be kept for those who are paid to play or administer.

I heard Brett Papworth on the radio yesterday on this very point.
He was saying that the only people with any voice in the game,are the ones that are ripping all the cash out of it.
What is the point of the professional game? Is it to foster development?
Because if it is,it is failing.
If it is not assisting in the grassroots,logic suggests that the grassroots should not fund it.

 

[Strewthcobber]

True,but the Soup franchises wear the lions share of player costs.
What would be the total salaries for everyone who wore a Gold jumper last year?
How much of this were ARU top ups?

ARU paid out $16 million in player payments last year

 

[Brendan Hume]

IS nobody I think doubts they would survive.

But it's somewhat similar to being a franchise. You may be able to get by as your own entity but the advertising (in this case the professional game) and profile as a whole is what may be necessary to get your name out there and help you prosper.

Without a professional game, over time, rugby numbers would diminish. It may be slow, but it would be a slow death.

Well in this case, perhaps it's no different?

There is a symbiotic relationship between the two - grassroots needs the professional game to be attractive to participants, professional game (in particular Rugby because of its complexity and position on the Australian sporting landscape) needs grassroots to buy its product.
Both should be able to operate reasonably free of financial burden from the other.
The only caveat to this is the development pathways that turn a grassroots players, coaches and referees into professionals. This should be paid for by the professional organisations with revenue from selling the professional game, with some support from the grassroots organisations, and the players themselves.
If, in Australia, professional teams can't compete with international clubs, you can't go into debt to keep your best players - you need to select your second best. Its a challenge, but option 1 is not sustainable, as we are unfortunately finding out.

 

[Strewthcobber]

There is a symbiotic relationship between the two - grassroots needs the professional game to be attractive to participants, professional game (in particular Rugby because of its complexity and position on the Australian sporting landscape) needs grassroots to buy its product.
Both should be able to operate reasonably free of financial burden from the other.
The only caveat to this is the development pathways that turn a grassroots players, coaches and referees into professionals. This should be paid for by the professional organisations with revenue from selling the professional game, with some support from the grassroots organisations, and the players themselves.
If, in Australia, professional teams can't compete with international clubs, you can't go into debt to keep your best players - you need to select your second best. Its a challenge, but option 1 is not sustainable, as we are unfortunately finding out.

Where do you think a team like Queensland country, age group rep teams or the women's rep teams fit?

For me they are the interesting cases, and most probably the costs the ARU/QRU are trying to shift back on to the community.

Most of these rep players will never be pros and never generate an income for the code, but absorb more cost than your average clubby.

 

[Braveheart81]

I heard Brett Papworth on the radio yesterday on this very point.
He was saying that the only people with any voice in the game,are the ones that are ripping all the cash out of it.
What is the point of the professional game? Is it to foster development?
Because if it is,it is failing.
If it is not assisting in the grassroots,logic suggests that the grassroots should not fund it.

In 2013, the ARU distributed $5.176m to the state unions, spent almost $4.8m on Community rugby and funded the Super Rugby teams which in turn provide distributions to their respective state unions.

 

[Brendan Hume]

Where do you think a team like Queensland country, age group rep teams or the women's rep teams fit?

For me they are the interesting cases, and most probably the costs the ARU/QRU are trying to shift back on to the community.

Most of these rep players will never be pros and never generate an income for the code, but absorb more cost than your average clubby.

They should be funded primarily by the community that they represent, and partly by the players themselves. This model has been in place for a while anyway as far as I'm aware.

Women's is a little different because of the Olympic program, and the large gap in participation, but this should probably be supported by IOC funding, along with some other grassroots support.

 

[Brendan Hume]

In 2013, the ARU distributed $5.176m to the state unions, spent almost $4.8m on Community rugby and funded the Super Rugby teams which in turn provide distributions to their respective state unions.

I would be very interested to see the breakdown for "Community Rugby".

 

[Train Without a Station]

True,but the Soup franchises wear the lions share of player costs.
What would be the total salaries for everyone who wore a Gold jumper last year?
How much of this were ARU top ups?

I believe beyond sourcing Third Party Agreements and Wider Training Groups the franchises do not share any of the cost. As far as I'm aware much like the AFL and NRL, the full cost of the salary cap is funded by the central body.

Obviously I understand that this is actually only a small cost of running a professional sporting organization. But if the Wallabies are the major cash cow then surely they account for the majority of that $25M, meaning Super Rugby on it's own is bringing in less than $16M, the amount the ARU is putting into the states.

You miss the point: we only need this money to prop up the professional end of the game. They need all these hangers on and are telling us there is nothing left for the levels to whom they owe their existence. and then they raid the coffers of the junior clubs: on what possible basis to they have that right?

IS, I think you are missing the point a little. Without the professional hanger onners, the game has no profile and will diminish at a grassroots level. There is no grassroots when there is not enough players to fill a team.

I'm not backing the ARU's actions, just trying to point out that much like the ARU does need the grassroots for professional rugby's survival, the grassroots needs professional rugby for their own survival.

You cannot say without the professional level the game will be better off. If the professional level was run better, the game certainly would be better off yes.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

One side continues to honour its part of the rugby compact the other does not.

 

[Train Without a Station]

IS, it's a little simpler for the community game to honor theirs than the national governing body.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

IS, it's a little simpler for the community game to honor theirs than the national governing body.

Quite: so the community game should pay to be associated with an organisation that pay JON $2m for a job well done.
Spare me.
Thats it for me.

 

[Train Without a Station]

No. I'm merely trying to say that it's not exactly black and white. For example, some of this community money has obviously gone to funding the Shute Shield.

Reducing fees when previously viable would have made the community clubs happy, but would equally have angered the Shute Shield clubs (as seen now).

 

[Brendan Hume]

I just can't see how the ARU and states can justify asking for this money without delivering a plan on what it is for. If it's a bail out, say that, request a loan or an ex gratia payment from clubs, and the wider rugby community and deliver a plan that shows how the money will deliver benefit to the game.

The game belongs to everyone, but the management of the game has belonged to the old boys club for too long.

A properly developed plan, with consultation from all stakeholders, is required - not a hollow cash grab from the people who have worked so hard to grow the game in clubs.

 

[Chris McCracken]

Where do you think a team like Queensland country, age group rep teams or the women's rep teams fit?

For me they are the interesting cases, and most probably the costs the ARU/QRU are trying to shift back on to the community.

Most of these rep players will never be pros and never generate an income for the code, but absorb more cost than your average clubby.

Where is this place where the rep teams are even part-funded? Because around here, the rep teams fund themselves or are funded out of the competition they play in. I thought that was the way it was done everywhere?