The Pulverisation of Australian Rugby

[Inside Shoulder]

My information on the Randwick/UNSW tie-up is that it involves residing in College with some academic support and mentoring. One parent that I spoke to was very impressed and it made the difference where the kid will be in 2015. (They live on the north shore and have no connection to Randwick previously)

Fair enough - my source lives close and works closer so nothing in the residential offer

 

[formerflanker]

Where to post this....Pulverisation thread or a new one for Scholboys 2015?
From Brett Harris in today's Australian:
Meanwhile, the ARU’s razor gang has also slashed the funding of the Australian Schools Union.
The Australian Schools Union now receives less than 50 per cent, in real terms, than it did from the ARU in 2008, while sponsorship has become harder to secure.
Australian Schoolboys will be asked to pay higher levies next year for the honour of representing their country and their overseas tour has been cancelled.
Had a quick look at the Schoolboys web site - no specific news re tour cancellation (where were they going?) but the calendar only shows games v Samoa and NZ in Brisbane.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

So the position is this: the wallabies want/need grassroots support - people buying game tickets and taking on foxtel subs, oh and I nearly forgot the junior team levy.
They need this to generate $$$$.
What do they propose doing with the $$$$?
What is the nature (financial, spiritual, coincidental?) of the connection between the ARU and junior and club rugby?
How is this relationship reflected in the running of the non wallaby aspects of the game?
How many people actually derive a benefit from the $$$$ generated?

 

[Train Without a Station]

IS is it not conceivable that with the decline in support and viewers that this $$$$ spent does not seem to be offering any significant return?

 

[Strewthcobber]

So the position is this: the wallabies want/need grassroots support - people buying game tickets and taking on foxtel subs, oh and I nearly forgot the junior team levy.
They need this to generate $$$$.
What do they propose doing with the $$$$?
What is the nature (financial, spiritual, coincidental?) of the connection between the ARU and junior and club rugby?
How is this relationship reflected in the running of the non wallaby aspects of the game?
How many people actually derive a benefit from the $$$$ generated?

There are some interesting questions there.

I think there are really three levels of rugby in Australia.

The 200,000 odd juniors and seniors who never want anything more than to have a game on a Saturday. Cover insurance, enough to keep their club running and they are happy. Basically doesn't cost much and they (almost) fund themselves.

The pros and coaches at wallaby and super rugby level. They get the salary and it's covered by sponsorship, gate and broadcasting money.

The third, and most interesting for this discussion is between those two. Age group rep teams, development officers, high performance identification, oz sevens, oz women, Queensland country (eg), subbies rep teams, officers coaching kids at their school etc etc. They have high costs, but they don't generate much income.

Its the third that sucks away the funds.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Strewthcobber I think that's where a lot of this debate has extended to 36 pages over.

Some of us believe those 200,000 people are the fans who should be nurtured and grown as they represent the best commercial opportunity for the game.

Where the other half considers the semi-elite (rep, premier clubs, etc.) to be the group of greatest value where the effort should be concentrated because they provide the talent which is of course necessary for the game.

My view (not necessarily correct) is that if you get the real base large enough, the talent will be there and that because of that it's much easier and more likely to replace the quality talent, then get more supporters by nurturing the talent only.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Some of us believe those 200,000 people are the fans who should be nurtured and grown as they represent the best commercial opportunity for the game.

Can you explain how this opportunity is "commercial"?

 

[Train Without a Station]

Can you explain how this opportunity is "commercial"?

Getting people to view and attend rugby.

In my view, you will grow your supporter base by growing the number of hackers having a crack in subbies comps more than by improving the quality of the semi-elite comps.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

and if you don't have the "semi-elite" comps you wont have people worth watching

 

[Train Without a Station]

Rather than get into this whole debate again, I'm just going to say that's my view and that by growing the actual base larger it will be exposed to more talent and therefore more quality natural talent will be in that group.

And that it is easier to import talent than it is to import fans.

It's just my view that if you could only afford to focus on one (or none in the ARU's case), that's what you should focus on.

The talent pool doesn't drive the teams ultimately, the fan support does.

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Where to post this..Pulverisation thread or a new one for Scholboys 2015?
From Brett Harris in today's Australian:
Meanwhile, the ARU’s razor gang has also slashed the funding of the Australian Schools Union.
The Australian Schools Union now receives less than 50 per cent, in real terms, than it did from the ARU in 2008, while sponsorship has become harder to secure.
Australian Schoolboys will be asked to pay higher levies next year for the honour of representing their country and their overseas tour has been cancelled.
Had a quick look at the Schoolboys web site - no specific news re tour cancellation (where were they going?) but the calendar only shows games v Samoa and NZ in Brisbane.

This lobbed into the inbox the other day, as an alternate means of fund raising for ASRU:

A PLEA FOR YOUR SUPPORT
A Crowd Funding Appeal

The Australian Schools Rugby Union (ASRU) is appealing for financial assistance from as many supporters as possible.
Following substantial cuts in funding since the GFC in 2008 right up to this year we now receive less than 50% in real terms from the ARU than we did in 2008. Obviously also sponsors have become harder to get, although we have a core of dedicated partners whose contributions make a significant difference.
As a consequence, we have had to cut out programmes in 2014 e.g. no inbound international tour in 2014, No Australia A team in 2014, no tour to a pacific island prior to playing New Zealand.
In 2015 players will be asked to pay higher levies for both the national championships and to be members of the Australian Teams, there will be no outbound tour, the Australian team will be billeted for much of their international program, etc.

SO PLEASE CONSIDER JOINING THIS "CROWD-FUNDING APPEAL" AS AN ASSOCIATE MEMBER FOR 2015

Br. Bob Wallace AM
President

Join now for 2015
The details of this are:
Four levels of Membership:
i.Individual Membership $100 per year
ii.Student Membership $50 per year for those under 25 years of age who are fulltime students
iii.Club / School Membership $500 per year

iv.Corporate Membership $1,000 per year


Membership Benefits:

• Listing and acknowledgement on the ASRU web site
• Provision of an ASRU souvenir badge & Membership Certificate
• Receipt of the ASRU Schools Rugby News electronically â€"two times a year
• Invitations to all ASRU games held in Australia including incoming tours and the Australian Schools Rugby Championships, and, at cost if necessary, to post match functions for ASRU games.
• An invitation to assist with a Careers Expo to be held at the Championships and in other major cities at appropriate events helping provide guidance and assistance to schools rugby players at this level.

Corporate Members:

• All of the above, plus
• Photo opportunity with the Australian Schoolboys team
• Provision of six (6) ASRU souvenir caps

How to Join:
On line: http://www.trybooking.com/EHWS
By Cheque:

Payable to the ASRU and mailed to PO Box 645, Baulkham Hills, NSW 1755

 

[Brendan Hume]

There are some interesting questions there.

I think there are really three levels of rugby in Australia.

The 200,000 odd juniors and seniors who never want anything more than to have a game on a Saturday. Cover insurance, enough to keep their club running and they are happy. Basically doesn't cost much and they (almost) fund themselves.

The pros and coaches at wallaby and super rugby level. They get the salary and it's covered by sponsorship, gate and broadcasting money.

The third, and most interesting for this discussion is between those two. Age group rep teams, development officers, high performance identification, oz sevens, oz women, Queensland country (eg), subbies rep teams, officers coaching kids at their school etc etc. They have high costs, but they don't generate much income.

Its the third that sucks away the funds.

Those 200,000 are being asked to pay $33 each to the ARU and the percentage that are in Queensland are being asked to pay $65 to the QRU... The same group that:
1. Provide the best commercial opportunity for the sport
2. Really want nothing more than to have a game on Saturday, cover insurance and keep their club running...

All we want from the ARU and State body is the appropriate training (Smart Rugby and access to Level 1 and Level 2 Coaching and Refereeing courses) and access to an insurance policy. My region has a little over 2000 rugby players, and it will take around $160,000 out of our region to sign up to the new National Participation program...

 

[Crashy]

Not that I’m deriving any pleasure from it, but to put the current financial malaise that is Australian Rugby into context, quite a few AFL clubs have released their financial reports for 2014 making for some big financial losses. ( granted their revenue is at least $40 million per club) but some have taken on substantial debt which I believe none of the SupeRugby clubs have presently.

Brisbane Lions $3.5 million loss.
St Kilda $3.9 million loss with debt approaching $12 million.
Port Adelaide reportedly looking at a $2 million loss
Reports that GC and GWS are again looking at big losses

In fact they reckon 6 out of the 18 clubs will post a profit.
While these losses are massive, AFL is the one code that can afford them as the Lions are being bailed out by the peak body.
It seems that no matter how much money is in the game, a lot of clubs will spend more than they receive.
One upside of Rugby being an international game as that overseas clubs join the arms race meaning the Aussie clubs don’t throw ridiculous money at average players like what you see in the NRL as well.

If the new TV from 2016 onwards privides the ARU with an additional $15 million per year, its needs to spent wisely and not just handed around to the clubs like confetti.

 

[Train Without a Station]

It needs to make the unpopular decisions to spend money where they get their best financial return also.

This may piss me off, this may piss QH, Dave, IS and others off. Regardless of who it does, they need to do it rather than follow the path of least resistance which is how the ARU got to this position.

 

[Brendan Hume]

Not that I’m deriving any pleasure from it, but to put the current financial malaise that is Australian Rugby into context, quite a few AFL clubs have released their financial reports for 2014 making for some big financial losses. ( granted their revenue is at least $40 million per club) but some have taken on substantial debt which I believe none of the SupeRugby clubs have presently.

Brisbane Lions $3.5 million loss.
St Kilda $3.9 million loss with debt approaching $12 million.
Port Adelaide reportedly looking at a $2 million loss
Reports that GC and GWS are again looking at big losses

In fact they reckon 6 out of the 18 clubs will post a profit.
While these losses are massive, AFL is the one code that can afford them as the Lions are being bailed out by the peak body.
It seems that no matter how much money is in the game, a lot of clubs will spend more than they receive.

If you take the advice of people within the system, given in confidence, not one Australian Super Rugby franchise is making a profit, and I'm sure everyone is aware of the dire financial situation of the ARU. The fact is, that the AFL can afford to cover all of the debts of their clubs - the AusKick program made $25M last year... The AFL uses the debts to control the clubs and grow the game, and they have done so very successfully.

If the new TV from 2016 onwards provides the ARU with an additional $15 million per year, its needs to spent wisely and not just handed around to the clubs like confetti.

Rugby players have been some of the highest paid sportspeople in the country since professionalism. I'm not sure how the international nature of the game puts downwards pressure on salaries.

If the new TV from 2016 onwards privides the ARU with an additional $15 million per year, its needs to spent wisely and not just handed around to the clubs like confetti.

The ARU had millions in the banks from the golden era of the late 90's early 00's. Nothing would suggest to me they'll do anything wisely with any windfalls into the future. They don't have a plan for sustainability.

 

[Strewthcobber]

The ARU had millions in the banks from the golden era of the late 90's early 00's. Nothing would suggest to me they'll do anything wisely with any windfalls into the future. They don't have a plan for sustainability.

I'll give credit where it's due - for the first time since professionalism we are seeing decisions made by the CEO and the rest of the ARU that are moving them in a sustainable direction.

The proof will be in the pudding but in his first year Billy P banked 20 million on the back of the Lions tour. He's got another $15 m a year from broadcasting. He's made the obviously unpopular desicion to increase the fees on the grass roots.

On the other side of the ledger barely a day goes by where reports of more money being cut from somewhere in the game.

We aren't going to agree with everything they do but at least their heads aren't completely buried in the sand while they spend themselves to insolvency.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

It needs to make the unpopular decisions to spend money where they get their best financial return also.

This may piss me off, this may piss QH, Dave, IS and others off. Regardless of who it does, they need to do it rather than follow the path of least resistance which is how the ARU got to this position.

Assume your plan goes swimminlgy and player numbers soar and as a result there are just so many more talented juniors coming into the game.
Let's leave aside the issue of where the talented ones will finish up playing their junior rugby: that's for another thread (although it is a serious issuethat needs to be addressed).
And lets say in a few years all these talented juniors that have come to the game because of money spent by the ARU on juniors instead of on club rugby (because I agree that money needs to be spent on juniors) reach 18 and they're ready for the next step in their rugby development.
Where do you envisage they will play and what development/coaching do you envisage they will get in your model?
And in the years until this avalanche of new talent matures where will the ARUs cannon fodder play week in week out?
{fact is the ARU is not spending any money anywhere but on the pointy end}

 

[Braveheart81]

Clearly the Shute Shield nees to exist. Club rugby is an integral part of both development and participation in Australian rugby.

It should be completely amateur though in my opinion.

Clubs need to find a way to survive in an environment where there is little or no cash flowing from the areas of the game that generate money because those areas are struggling to survive as well.

 

[Train Without a Station]

The ARU had millions in the banks from the golden era of the late 90's early 00's. Nothing would suggest to me they'll do anything wisely with any windfalls into the future. They don't have a plan for sustainability.

Brendan I think your posts are balanced and fair, especially given you are obviously aligned to one side. But this particular comment is ridiculous.

How many people from a decade ago are still with the ARU?

Do we blame Tony Abbot for John Howard and Paul Keating's shortcomings?

 

[Train Without a Station]

IS, I'm not going to respond. Neither of us having anything new to say.

My point is that whether it falls my side of the argument or yours, the ARU needs to follow the path that offers the best for Australian rugby as a whole. Regardless of certain groups think.

You will never please everybody, so you may as well do what offers the most benefit and at least see some positives out of pissing of sections of people.