The Pulverisation of Australian Rugby

[Braveheart81]

In the context of professional sport and the turnover and costs of the ARU that is not a huge sum of money

That's probably the rationale that saw $30m disappear from the balance sheet over the last decade with nothing to show for it.

It's not like anyone can say that at least they poured extra money into juniors over that time and it should pay dividends into the future with more fans and more players.

 

[Train Without a Station]

It was a huge sum to Australian Rugby 11 years ago (Not exactly nearly 15. It's almost exactly 11 years. But in 2011 the AFL got a $1.2B broadcast deal for 2012-2016 which is $240M per year. In 2006 they signed a deal for 2007-2011 of $780M which works out to be $156M per year.

The ARU started 2004 with $35M in the bank and bringing in something like $9.4M a year in TV revenue (being very generous) which was about $2M per team if you include the Wallabies costs as being separate like a 4th team, likely their biggest revenue source.

In 2000 the AFL signed a deal for $500M for 2002-2006 at $100M per year which was $6.25M per team. Three years later the AFL began bringing in $156M revenue which was $9.75M per team.

 

[Braveheart81]

It was a huge sum to Australian Rugby 11 years ago (Not exactly nearly 15. It's almost exactly 11 years. But in 2011 the AFL got a $1.2B broadcast deal for 2012-2016 which is $240M per year. In 2006 they signed a deal for 2007-2011 of $780M which works out to be $156M per year.

The ARU started 2004 with $35M in the bank and bringing in something like $9.4M a year in TV revenue (being very generous) which was about $2M per team if you include the Wallabies costs as being separate like a 4th team, likely their biggest revenue source.

In 2000 the AFL signed a deal for $500M for 2002-2006 at $100M per year which was $6.25M per team. Three years later the AFL began bringing in $156M revenue which was $9.75M per team.

I'm not really sure what you're arguing. That is was understandable for the ARU to spend more on corporate and player expenses than they should have because there was (hopefully) a massive TV deal just around the corner?

 

[I like to watch]

Don't worry about the AFL.
The ARU received a windfall of $35 odd Mill, at a time when their annual revenue was circa $60M.
They invested nothing in the game since.
I'm not suggesting they should have spent dollar for dollar with AFL or anyone else,but they should have invested something.
I have had kids in Primary School and kids who have finished School, who played School,Club & rep football, in this period.
None have ever seen an ARU development officer.
JON was often quoted as believing if the Wobblies were winning everything else looked after itself.
Wrong!
I have seen nothing from the new administration that suggests they have any different priorities.

 

[Strewthcobber]

When you compare 2002 with 2012 its interesting to see how much more the ARU spends on the pro teams to get essentially the same broadcasting revenue. Sponsorship and gate takings are both up considerably.

Distributions to the unions, and community rugby is basically the same

But the really interesting amount at almost exactly $3m a year that is new, is the National Sevens team costs

 

[TOCC]

Don't worry about the AFL.
The ARU received a windfall of $35 odd Mill, at a time when their annual revenue was circa $60M.
They invested nothing in the game since.
I'm not suggesting they should have spent dollar for dollar with AFL or anyone else,but they should have invested something.

Would you consider $10million in grants to the Shute Shield be considered an investment in the Grassroots?

I know there's a lot of passion on this subject, buts let's discuss this rationally.. The root of the argument is that the ARU has cut a grant, that grant was an investment into the game.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I'm not really sure what you're arguing. That is was understandable for the ARU to spend more on corporate and player expenses than they should have because there was (hopefully) a massive TV deal just around the corner?

No.

I'm putting into the context of the market which you are competing in with regards to advertising, recruiting professionals, etc.

Say they ARU reigned in expenses. Didn't sign league players (Nobody will miss Tahu, but no Folau, etc. Reduced salaries and lost a few players because of it. Recruited lower tier employees, didn't have a crack at the ARC, and all these measures. It's entirely possibly that rugby could have slid into even further obscurity somewhat similar to the NBL in that time.

I'm not saying it was adequate, but as TOCC pointed out, almost a third of that windfall went to the Shute Shield clubs. Take that, take the initial crack at the NRC and you almost account for half of it.

 

[I like to watch]

Would you consider $10million in grants to the Shute Shield be considered an investment in the Grassroots?

I know there's a lot of passion on this subject, buts let's discuss this rationally.. The root of the argument is that the ARU has cut a grant, that grant was an investment into the game.

I'm not so sure the amount is actually $10M.
But it was wasted.Handing out large cheques without performance hurdles is poor management.
My biggest gripe with the withdrawal of the grant is the lack of notice,and the fact that it comes at a time when the ARU also requested the clubs to invest their money in the NRC.
Then there is the new tax on participation,it's not even like they are wanting the juniors to fund their own development,they just want their cash.

 

[Train Without a Station]

It's not a new tax. It's an increase in costs.

The levy appears to have been a temporary measure, which despite the implication that they are all fat cats sitting in their ivory towers counting their money, they didn't want to have to charge, hence it being a levy, not an increase in fees.

Unfortunately that has lead to an increase in fees. Not good, but at the same time, have fees moved at all in line with inflation?

Personally playing on the Gold Coast I'm pretty sure my subs were $270 in 2006, and the last year I played there they were $270 again. Pretty sure in 3 seasons at Melbourne Uni they did not change at all either.

How does this compare to other sports? Likely negatively. It wouldn't surprise me if AFL junior fees have decreased in real terms. But their revenue has also increased in real terms.

It's almost at a point for the ARU where it's the economies of scale which is making them not feasible. With certain fixed costs that cannot really change regardless of size of market, they would probably be outlaying similar now with 6 professional teams, and the participation they have as if they had 16 or 18 professional teams and similar participation to AFL or Rugby League.

 

[Brendan Hume]

As someone who's run a club for the past 7 years, played for the last 20, with two sons now playing, I'm aghast at the changes that have been introduced. There's an interesting booklet developed that introduces the new National Participation Game Plan. I thought I recognised the format and it was confirmed as being produced by someone who's also done a lot of the QRU information stuff over the past couple of years.
I've put in a significant effort into building rugby at my club, and I see over the past few years those efforts being undermined by the administration of the state and national bodies. There has been no consultation on these changes with clubs (as there was none on the $200 levy). The national levy has increased from $200 per team to $27.50 per junior (U8 - U18) or roughly $275 for an U8 team of 10 players (7 plus 3 reserves) or $632.50 for a squad of 23 Under 12s - U17's.
Seniors have increased more to $759 for a squad of 23.
The effect of these changes, taking away the ability for clubs to manage registration and insurance costs is that social players will not engage in the game at all levels. Administration of registrations will be significantly more challenging and more important due to liabilities with insurance. All the while, the ARU seems to make a balls up of the game that I love.
There is no accountability as to what this money will be used for, or what the plans are for the the game at a grass roots level for the future. You can't tap the bottom as a cash cow for the top without providing something significant in exchange.

 

[Braveheart81]

It amazes me that rugby in Australia hasn't had a centralised insurance policy and registration system for all players prior to now.

 

[Brendan Hume]

It has, but it was administered by clubs.

 

[Brendan Hume]

For comparison sake, in 2013 it cost my club $1960 to insure a senior team. In 2014 it was $1790, plus a compulsory fee of $200 per team (or $1990 total).
That cost for 23 registered players in 2015 will be $2484 ($1725 for insurance - $75 per player, and $759 for National Participant Registration - $33 per player).
Where a player decided to come down to try rugby with a game with the Thirsty Thirds, the player was insured under the team insurance. The club could allow that player to have a run without paying any subs for a couple of weeks and when they realised Rugby was the greatest game they'd ever played, they would pay their fees and be an active member of the club. Now, every player is required to have paid the fee ($108) individually in order to be covered by insurance. How many people are going to "Try Rugby" with this sort of system?

 

[It is what it is]

When we are talking $3M per year, when every 4th year there is minimal domestic income do you think it's squandering?

I'd consider it to be slowly bleeding and until now nobody being willing to piss off powerful factions (such as the Shute Shield clubs) to stop it before it's too late.

TWAS, what influence and/or authority do the Shute Shield club's powerful factions have today across any facet of Australian Rugby?
What threat do they pose right now that deserves them being 'pissed off'?

Their players have been taken by new and remote Super Clubs with no compensation paid, and these same players are not allowed to return for club duties.
The ARU invited Shute Shield clubs to participate in the NRC, totally at the club's risk and cost in a competition with less TV exposure than the SS competition and no free to air coverage.
The Shute Shield clubs then witnessed NSW Rugby/Waratahs completely wash their hands of any investment or involvement, but instead cash-in by charging hire fees for a NRC team to use their facilities.
I think SS clubs have done an outstanding job in preparing players for higher levels of rugby for many years, but the value exchange with Australian Rugby has become all one way.

 

[Chris McCracken]

It amazes me that rugby in Australia hasn't had a centralised insurance policy and registration system for all players prior to now.

It has. Gow-Gates has provided the central insurance and MyRugbyAdmin the centralised registration. Not all clubs/Zones used MRA, though.

The new one-stop shop idea is new though - and certainly is something other sports were embracing a long time ago.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I love the comment "their players have been taken".

You reckon many of these players, play Shute Shield on the hope of securing a professional contract maybe?

 

[It is what it is]

I love the comment "their players have been taken".

You reckon many of these players, play Shute Shield on the hope of securing a professional contract maybe?

Cheap cherry picking.
You didn't answer either of the 2 questions regarding claims you made.

 

[fatprop]

Their players have been taken by new and remote Super Clubs with no compensation paid, and these same players are not allowed to return for club duties.

I found this photo of the players being led to their transport after being signed

 

[Train Without a Station]

Well it's a pretty big point because that is always a huge claim that "their" players are "stolen", when part of what brings many quality players to the clubs is the desire to progress beyond the club.

As for your questions, perhaps it's slowly diminishing now, but prior to the revised voting rights the NSWRU, made up of the clubs had a large influence in decision make. Previous decisions like the strong anti-ARC stance was to protect their own influence.

You don't think some of the key people from the clubs had any influence at all over bringing JON back, whether it be some persuasive conversations or anything else? Considering his first move was something that immediately made the clubs more relevant surely it's possible.

 

[Train Without a Station]

I'm intrigued to know what other sports compensate amateur clubs when signing players. As far as I'm aware Rugby League nor cricket do this.