Where to for Super Rugby?

[dru]

SMH article:-

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...am-being-cut-roger-davis-20170412-gvjlnd.html

There has been plenty of internecine commentary. It would be really helpful I think if we stopped the rugby inter-state civil war.

 

[Blue]

Good first post (as many have said).

When the Force are a foundation NFL team or arguably the world's most famous football team, with international marketability, then that will be a valid example. Currently, it is not.

Whilst I agree that the the Force will never have that level of marketability for a number of obvious reasons, you are dismissing his actual point.

Green Bay was on its arse and the fans bailed it out. The rest is history.

 

[Blue]

To name a few:

-More rugby on FTA
-Clear development pathways
-a less convoluted Super Rugby comp
-improved marketing for NRC, Super Rugby and Wallabies
-improved allocation of resources
-a softening of the elitist brand image
-recalibration of test match ticket pricing

- don't look incompetent.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

SMH article:-

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...am-being-cut-roger-davis-20170412-gvjlnd.html

There has been plenty of internecine commentary. It would be really helpful I think if we stopped the rugby inter-state civil war.

Agreed, but hey why stop the petty politics that has plagued Australian rugby for over a hundred years now. It really makes us look small and hurts the game overall.

 

[TOCC]

More rugby on FTA? How exactly?

Development? Seems pretty clear to me. We do not have a lot of talent, AFAIK less than we need. So all the talented players should get all the development they need.


The Super Rugby comp and its make-up is not the ARU's decision. They have a say, of course. But it is not our competition, after all. We just participate in it.

Marketing? Lipstick on a pig, as far as the mass market is concerned.


Our "elitist" brand image is about the only plus we have, frankly. Maybe we should play to it a bit more.


Test match pricing? Swings and roundabouts.

You asked for a simple answer and i gave you one.. Evidently my response doesn't suit your argument..

Do you disagree that the following changes by the ARU would make rugby in this country more popular?

-More rugby on FTA
-Clear development pathways
-a less convoluted Super Rugby comp
-improved marketing for NRC, Super Rugby and Wallabies
-improved allocation of resources
-a softening of the elitist brand image
-recalibration of test match ticket pricing

 

[kickedmyheight]

SMH article:-

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...am-being-cut-roger-davis-20170412-gvjlnd.html

There has been plenty of internecine commentary. It would be really helpful I think if we stopped the rugby inter-state civil war.

Poorly timed comments. If he thinks that four teams is the correct decision then I am tempted to ask him to offer up the Waratahs for the chop.

Apologies, this infighting doesn't help but neither does fighting over a carcass before the murder is even complete!

With regard to his comments about the majority of money going to NSW and QLD as they produce the most players, that is part of the reason that we are in trouble now. We have only ever focussed on these two regions with the others left to fend for themselves which has reinforced the heartland as the heartland while hamstringing any other regions from becoming part of the heartland! Look to the AFL, do you think their focus is on Victoria? No! The heartland should never be abandoned, but the room for improvement is greatest in non-traditional markets. How great would Aus rugby be if the Perth, Canberra and Melbourne local comps were as strong as the Shute shield or Brisbane club rugby!

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

[amirite]

Whilst I agree that the the Force will never have that level of marketability for a number of obvious reasons, you are dismissing his actual point.

Green Bay was on its arse and the fans bailed it out. The rest is history.

I think you're missing my point - has a struggling team ran with this ownership model, in a situation similar to this, and then seen success?

Green Bay has always had fan ownership, with the exception of a couple of early seasons when the only real cost seemed to be uniforms. This was also in the 20s, so pretty different times.

The Packers have done several floats, but this doesn't really cut against my point Own the Force not being a long term solution. The Packers have something like 300,000 stakeholders, the Force will have 5000-10000.

If shit goes south at some point in the next decade, and logic says it very well could, where do those extra funds come from?

 

[No4918]

You asked for a simple answer and i gave you one.. Evidently my response doesn't suit your argument..

Do you disagree that the following changes by the ARU would make rugby in this country more popular?

-More rugby on FTA
-Clear development pathways
-a less convoluted Super Rugby comp
-improved marketing for NRC, Super Rugby and Wallabies
-improved allocation of resources
-a softening of the elitist brand image
-recalibration of test match ticket pricing

Asking for a simple answer to an obviously complex problem Apparently one simple solution is the answer to the code's issues. Makes you wonder how nobody has managed to think of it before. Hardly worth engaging with the individual, their mind is made up.

All the changes you suggest would help.

 

[NTT]

I think you're missing my point - has a struggling team ran with this ownership model, in a situation similar to this, and then seen success?

Green Bay has always had fan ownership, with the exception of a couple of early seasons when the only real cost seemed to be uniforms. This was also in the 20s, so pretty different times.

The Packers have done several floats, but this doesn't really cut against my point Own the Force not being a long term solution. The Packers have something like 300,000 stakeholders, the Force will have 5000-10000.

If shit goes south at some point in the next decade, and logic says it very well could, where do those extra funds come from?

The shareholders will raise the money to cover expenses. Coming up with an extra $2-$3 million every 5 years is much easier for 5000 people to cover than one individual constantly putting in $2-$3 million a year. It is all outlined in the prospectus.

 

[BLR]

If shit goes south at some point in the next decade, and logic says it very well could, where do those extra funds come from?

You still haven't answered what happens to the Rebels if Cox decides he wants out? (Which naming a price indicates he does want out)

Is the whim of one man not more dangerous to a team?

 

[NTT]

Hasn't Mr Cox being getting evaluations on how much his license is worth? That would indicate he is exploring his options at least.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Looking at the Waratahs - their successful 2014 season was based on a annual revenue of $19.5 million, of which the ARU contributed $4.2m

So the one successful Super Rugby team we've had recently, came up with $15m from other sources in their victorious year.

In the same year, the RugbyWA generated $15m - so the Force itself ex-ARU less than that (maybe $9-$10m?)

There's something like a $5m difference between the two programs.

The danger is that to fund the success that we all hope the Force can one day achieve, it wouldn't be $2-3 million every 5 years - it would be that much money requested every year.

And eventually the request wouldn't be able to be met.

Obviously there's differences in financial models and licensing etc, and $$$ don't guarantee success but I think the point stands

 

[amirite]

The shareholders will raise the money to cover expenses. Coming up with an extra $2-$3 million every 5 years is much easier for 5000 people to cover than one individual constantly putting in $2-$3 million a year. It is all outlined in the prospectus.

Do the Force still get ARU funding under the plan? If not, I imagine it would be substantially more then 2-3mil a year (which is still $600per person annually).

You still haven't answered what happens to the Rebels if Cox decides he wants out? (Which naming a price indicates he does want out)

Is the whim of one man not more dangerous to a team?

I think you've come into the conversation half way. I am not making a comparison, I am merely saying Own the Force is not a silver bullet and shouldn't be treated as such.

I've always stated the pro-Rebels and Force cases are largely equal.

That being said, if the Own the Force model is as amazing as people think it is, the Force don't have a mortgage on it.

 

[BLR]

There's something like a $5m difference between the two programs.

The danger is that to fund the success that we all hope the Force can one day achieve, it wouldn't be $2-3 million every 5 years - it would be that much money requested every year.

Keep in mind most of our current rise in quality this year has been through our self-funding (through outside revenue figures) Future Force program, I would say that is the position the Force would be in going forward. Developing players instead of buying them which I assume would cut down prices considerably.

Your point stands, I get that, but I think being blinkered on the ownership structure without taking into account the other measures to cut costs so we don't bleed money like other teams in our position will be what makes in successful. Having an ownership structure to get quick cash without looking at all the other aspects of the business to make it work long term would be a disaster.

Brumbies have been attracting players because of their superior rugby program for years.

 

[blues recovery]

SMH article:-

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/u...am-being-cut-roger-davis-20170412-gvjlnd.html

There has been plenty of internecine commentary. It would be really helpful I think if we stopped the rugby inter-state civil war.

And I hesitate to continue this civil war stuff but this sort of commentary is so typical of NSW Rugby who's arrogance in the face of chronic under achieving is the stuff of legends .

 

[NTT]

Looking at the Waratahs - their successful 2014 season was based on a annual revenue of $19.5 million, of which the ARU contributed $4.2m

So the one successful Super Rugby team we've had recently, came up with $15m from other sources in their victorious year.

In the same year, the RugbyWA generated $15m - so the Force itself ex-ARU less than that (maybe $9-$10m?)

There's something like a $5m difference between the two programs.

The danger is that to fund the success that we all hope the Force can one day achieve, it wouldn't be $2-3 million every 5 years - it would be that much money requested every year.

And eventually the request wouldn't be able to be met.

Obviously there's differences in financial models and licensing etc, and $$$ don't guarantee success but I think the point stands

The Western Forces administration has undergone significant restructure since 2015 to reduce costs. We also have more sponsorship money now then in 2014,15 and 16. The ownership model does not rely solely on fan contributions alone. It is in conjunction with the ARU meeting their funding obligations under the alliance agreement they entered into with RugbyWA and any future negotiated funding outcomes. The ARU could negotiate we receive no ARU funding under this ownership model but they would again be in breach of the Alliance Agreement by acting outside of its responsibilities towards the agreement.
Speculating and forming concrete opinions based on unnegotiated outcomes is not advisable. Also there is no concrete evidence that what the Waratahs expenditure in 2014 was is the only amount required to guarantee success on field. As with any franchised business, expenditure and revenue vary.

 

[BLR]

That being said, if the Own the Force model is as amazing as people think it is, the Force don't have a mortgage on it.

Agreed, but what have other teams done? The Brumbies said it was a good idea when is started gaining traction. At the end of the day the ARU can't be relied on for cash.

 

[Braveheart81]

And I hesitate to continue this civil war stuff but this sort of commentary is so typical of NSW Rugby who's arrogance in the face of chronic under achieving is the stuff of legends .

I don't think you could find a Waratahs fan who isn't disgusted with Davis' comments.

It's unhelpful at the best of times, but at a time when one of the other teams is on the chopping block, it is downright offensive.

I hope someone senior within the ARU gives him a public dressing down.

 

[amirite]

Agreed, but what have other teams done? The Brumbies said it was a good idea when is started gaining traction. At the end of the day the ARU can't be relied on for cash.

True, but there's a lot of positing about hypotheticals here.

I think saying "we could copy that thing that's been done in a very similar context" is pretty realistic by comparison.

Plus, the Rebels, for example, can't run a similar campaign because they don't have a willing seller that they know of.

 

[BLR]

I think saying "we could copy that thing that's been done in a very similar context" is pretty realistic by comparison.

Well you can look at many other sporting contexts. I mean, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fan-owned_sports_teams

Big list there of teams that have various fan ownership strategies.

If we were to be too narrow about something that has never been done in Australia for rugby then the Rebels would never have been privatised. We can go round and round.