Where to for Super Rugby?

[amirite]

I know there's a lot of talk of how the ARU could tell SANZAAR the deal is off, but that deal was negotiated in good nature and was deemed in the best interest of the ARU and other unions. They also negotiated it with was it 30 broadcast partners?

As much as 5 teams going forward would be nice, I'd say the cull is definitely happening and on top of that it'd be a bad look for them to renege now.

 

[Braveheart81]

I'm sure as is their usual form the Tahs can't wait to dance on someone's grave
If not western Sydney then why not Western Australia

The comments from Davis were incredibly disappointing as a Tahs fan. The NSW-centric view is certainly held by certain sectors of rugby in NSW but there are lots of people where that simply isn't true and we are keen to shake that tag.

 

[wamberal]

I'm not sure changing to 4 teams will change that either.
As i said above the governing body has possibly lost the supporter base.

Mate, sorry, I just do not buy the argument that somehow this is all the fault of the ARU.


From my perspective, the ARU and in fact all the governing bodies have generally made fairly sensible decisions. We can now look back and say that there were some mistakes, with the benefit of hindsight.


One of the biggest mistakes was to give the franchises names that excluded any geographical reference. That was farking stupid. Another one was to call the Auckland team "The Blues", when blind Freddy knew that that name should have belonged to the NSW team.


Expanding to 18 franchises must have looked good on paper. Who knows what the marketing consultants said? It certainly did not work out that way.


But the on-going long term trend, not just here (but particularly here) is that the Super Rugby brand has just not held the popular imagination. When we also accept that rugby per se is certainly not thriving in Australia, in fact it is going down down down, we can see that we have a big, long term problem.


It is not the ARU whose decisions decide whether or not the grassroots is doing okay. It is the grassroots people. People like you. And there are diminishing numbers of them.


Blaming the ARU for the slow death of the grassroots misses the point entirely. The game does not exist because of the people who make the big decisions at the top, it grows from the bottom up because the average person likes it enough to watch it, support it, encourage their kids to play it, and put some time and effort into it.


That bottom up part cannot be bought.

 

[Slim 293]

I think you've mistaken Blind Freddie with with his slower cousin Dumb Freddie...........

I don't believe any rational person would've thought that changing the Waratahs long established brand to copy the mungo team would've been a good idea.

 

[Omar Comin']

on top of that it'd be a bad look for them to renege now.

Who cares how it looks. If it's the right call they should make it.

And the ARU worrying about looking bad would be like a man covered in mud worried about stepping on some dirt.

 

[No4918]

Who cares how it looks. If it's the right call they should make it.

And the ARU worrying about looking bad would be like a man covered in mud worried about stepping on some dirt.

So, assuming the ARU pulls out of the deal to cut a team, how do they fund the teams? Savings from the first year ($6 million) are expected to mostly be eaten up by the cutting of a side. Then projected savings are $9 million over the next two seasons. The broadcasters have agreed to keep the same deal so losing a team is without doubt in the financial interest of the ARU.

Where do they come up with that money otherwise?

Haven't looked much at Own the Force, is it sufficient to say we will never ask the ARU for money again?

Does the ARU refuse bailouts and any bankrupt franchise is taken over by the ARU? Might be a way to keep 5 teams, centralise and cut costs but the franchises will be dead against it.

I'm sorry but the decision to cut appears to mostly be a financial one. Next to none of the discussion I have seen about keeping the five teams has addressed that issue.

 

[amirite]

Who cares how it looks. If it's the right call they should make it.

And the ARU worrying about looking bad would be like a man covered in mud worried about stepping on some dirt.

It's not about looking bad as it's about spending months getting everything lined up and sorted then reneging. That's a lot of clout used up.

Imagine next negotiating cycle. Ick.

 

[Leo86]

Th

I know there's a lot of talk of how the ARU could tell SANZAAR the deal is off, but that deal was negotiated in good nature and was deemed in the best interest of the ARU and other unions. They also negotiated it with was it 30 broadcast partners?

As much as 5 teams going forward would be nice, I'd say the cull is definitely happening and on top of that it'd be a bad look for them to renege now.

The ARU have negotiated a lot of deals it seems in good nature...

So maybe honouring those to the Force and Rebels first.

Expanding to 18 didnt look good on paper. The ARU were warned of this. So yeh i think they are a lot at fault.

People like us arent going to encourage our kids to play a sport that doesnt exist in our state. Removing a franchise is removing grassroots.

 

[dru]

Taking another look at SARU and what they are up to. Not just cutting, but a strategy across African rugby. A touch inchoate (unformed) perhaps, but thinking is broader than "how many Super teams".

In essence each of the 14 Provincial unions have a quasi- Pro team. Currie Cup. Various of the Currie Cup clubs (soon to be four) are offered franchise rights - Super rugby.

The plan going forward is to cut to 8 professional teams with a layer of semi Pro beneath it. Four of those are Super. There is implied future planning for the second four to be playing in Europe, or Northern Hemisphere.

Funding changes to greatly increase for the Super teams - to be more competitive in holding top talent. The national footprint is maintained by morphing the Currie Cup to play those 8 teams domestically.

Doesnt matter if you like it, but it is obvious that their strategy is greatly more than a chopping block.

Lets hope ARU are watching.

 

[Omar Comin']

So, assuming the ARU pulls out of the deal to cut a team, how do they fund the teams? Savings from the first year ($6 million) are expected to mostly be eaten up by the cutting of a side. Then projected savings are $9 million over the next two seasons. The broadcasters have agreed to keep the same deal so losing a team is without doubt in the financial interest of the ARU.

Where do they come up with that money otherwise?

Haven't looked much at Own the Force, is it sufficient to say we will never ask the ARU for money again?

Does the ARU refuse bailouts and any bankrupt franchise is taken over by the ARU? Might be a way to keep 5 teams, centralise and cut costs but the franchises will be dead against it.

I'm sorry but the decision to cut appears to mostly be a financial one. Next to none of the discussion I have seen about keeping the five teams has addressed that issue.

They funded 5 teams in the previous broadcast deal (Super 15) on way less revenue, so it's not like they can't fund 5 teams. And last year they made a $3 million profit despite having to bail out the Force. The problem has been that they've had to spend so much in addition to what they'd budgeted because clubs kept getting into financial trouble.

But I would argue that if Own the Force is as successful as we're hearing and the Rebels private owners are committed for the long haul as they are promising then the facts have changed. That plus the fact the broadcast revenues are now much higher means that the ARU could afford to keep 5 teams. Why not roll out the Own the Force model across all of our teams? Aim for every franchise to have a substantial future fund to all but eliminate the need for the ARU to make unbudgeted bailouts in the foreseeable future.

I think we're already seeing that the damage to the rugby community in cutting a team is not worth whatever projected savings they think they're going to make. The financial problems for the ARU aren't because of 5 teams, it's because the competition model isn't working.

And on the broadcast deal, just because SANZAAR have agreed to keep the same distribution of it for now doesn't mean the ARU will get the same cut of the next one. I think it'd be quite naive to expect we would given we'll be providing way less content than we have with 5 teams. All cutting a team is doing is permanently shrinking the sport for a short term financial gain.

 

[Quick Hands]

That was the Chairman, Roger Davis. I haven't really heard much from Andrew Hore on this issue but generally his comments about supporting grassroots and growing the game have been really positive.

He's cut from the same cloth as most of those on the ARU Board. He's the guy who had a meltdown at the thought of having to play home games at Homebush for 2 years in exchange for having a brand new SFS.

Sydney ends at North Parramatta as far as RD is concerned. (Unless travelling to GPS Head of the River)

 

[Quick Hands]

Taking another look at SARU and what they are up to. Not just cutting, but a strategy across African rugby. A touch inchoate (unformed) perhaps, but thinking is broader than "how many Super teams".

In essence each of the 14 Provincial unions have a quasi- Pro team. Currie Cup. Various of the Currie Cup clubs (soon to be four) are offered franchise rights - Super rugby.

The plan going forward is to cut to 8 professional teams with a layer of semi Pro beneath it. Four of those are Super. There is implied future planning for the second four to be playing in Europe, or Northern Hemisphere.

Funding changes to greatly increase for the Super teams - to be more competitive in holding top talent. The national footprint is maintained by morphing the Currie Cup to play those 8 teams domestically.

Doesnt matter if you like it, but it is obvious that their strategy is greatly more than a chopping block.

Lets hope ARU are watching.

Agree. At least it's a strategy, and I'm yet to detect one of those from the ARU.

 

[Braveheart81]

They funded 5 teams in the previous broadcast deal (Super 15) on way less revenue, so it's not like they can't fund 5 teams. And last year they made a $3 million profit despite having to bail out the Force. The problem has been that they've had to spend so much in addition to what they'd budgeted because clubs kept getting into financial trouble.

The costs from the Force are going to be higher in 2017 though aren't they because they are employing the Force for the entire year.

I think we're already seeing that the damage to the rugby community in cutting a team is not worth whatever projected savings they think they're going to make. The financial problems for the ARU aren't because of 5 teams, it's because the competition model isn't working.

I think this is the driving force behind the change back to 15 teams though. I think everyone agrees the financial instability is caused by the structure of the competition and not the other way around and hence the need to change the competition. Clearly we would have all liked to see a 3x6 conference option pursued before they decided to drop teams.

 

[I like to watch]

Mate, sorry, I just do not buy the argument that somehow this is all the fault of the ARU.


From my perspective, the ARU and in fact all the governing bodies have generally made fairly sensible decisions. We can now look back and say that there were some mistakes, with the benefit of hindsight.


One of the biggest mistakes was to give the franchises names that excluded any geographical reference. That was farking stupid. Another one was to call the Auckland team "The Blues", when blind Freddy knew that that name should have belonged to the NSW team.


Expanding to 18 franchises must have looked good on paper. Who knows what the marketing consultants said? It certainly did not work out that way.


But the on-going long term trend, not just here (but particularly here) is that the Super Rugby brand has just not held the popular imagination. When we also accept that rugby per se is certainly not thriving in Australia, in fact it is going down down down, we can see that we have a big, long term problem.


It is not the ARU whose decisions decide whether or not the grassroots is doing okay. It is the grassroots people. People like you. And there are diminishing numbers of them.


Blaming the ARU for the slow death of the grassroots misses the point entirely. The game does not exist because of the people who make the big decisions at the top, it grows from the bottom up because the average person likes it enough to watch it, support it, encourage their kids to play it, and put some time and effort into it.


That bottom up part cannot be bought.

The bottom up need to be encouraged to try the sport, that what the AFL has been doing, and it works.
The ARU have been of the mindset that kids will automatically choose to play Rugby, and there was no need to encourage the little ones to try our game.
Oh, and instead of investing heavily like we know our competitors are doing, we'll place a levy on them.
My Nan would have described the ARU as penny wise a pound foolish

 

[blues recovery]

He's cut from the same cloth as most of those on the ARU Board. He's the guy who had a meltdown at the thought of having to play home games at Homebush for 2 years in exchange for having a brand new SFS.

Sydney ends at North Parramatta as far as RD is concerned. (Unless travelling to GPS Head of the River)

Having dealt with both organisations over many years in many different capacities , from my experience the shortsightedness, arrogance and incompetence of the ARU is only matched by their counterparts at NSW Rugby

 

[Twoilms]

Having dealt with both organisations over many years in many different capacities , from my experience the shortsightedness, arrogance and incompetence of the ARU is only matched by their counterparts at NSW Rugby

I'd go even further and say poor governance/management is an Australian trait. Read a book called 'The Lucky Country'. We typically succeed despite ourselves.

 

[Omar Comin']

The costs from the Force are going to be higher in 2017 though aren't they because they are employing the Force for the entire year.

But that would mean they're getting the revenues too right? So the net cost to the ARU should be similar to a normal year and might actually be a little lower because they can probably pool some resources.

I think this is the driving force behind the change back to 15 teams though. I think everyone agrees the financial instability is caused by the structure of the competition and not the other way around and hence the need to change the competition. Clearly we would have all liked to see a 3x6 conference option pursued before they decided to drop teams.

Agreed but the way it's been cynically used as an 'opportunity' to cut one of our teams for short term financial gain leaves a bad taste. Cutting a team should have been an absolute last resort, the ARU should have never even considered it until everything possible was done to make 5 teams work. And that's clearly not the case. In addition to the option to try 3x6 they could also just replace the Sunwolves with our 5th team in the 15 team model, or they could look to a 16 team comp with a straight round robin or two conferences.

 

[Braveheart81]

But that would mean they're getting the revenues too right? So the net cost to the ARU should be similar to a normal year and might actually be a little lower because they can probably pool some resources.

I don't believe any Western Force employees were sacked due to the change. The ARU have just taken on the liability of paying them.

I would expect the cost to the ARU is greater in 2017 than it was in 2016 when only for a part year.

 

[NTT]

I don't believe any Western Force employees were sacked due to the change. The ARU have just taken on the liability of paying them.

I would expect the cost to the ARU is greater in 2017 than it was in 2016 when only for a part year.

Most of the administration was cut to the bone after the Alliance Agreement with the ARU was signed. A number of staff were let go. The ARU has not exactly being secretive with their plans for the Force, thats how RugbyWA has kept a step ahead of the ARU on this matter.

 

[Braveheart81]

Most of the administration was cut to the bone after the Alliance Agreement with the ARU was signed. A number of staff were let go. The ARU has not exactly being secretive with their plans for the Force, thats how RugbyWA has kept a step ahead of the ARU on this matter.

OK. Thanks for the clarification.

Longer term, centralisation of the back offices of each Super Rugby side in Australia has to make sense. We need to pursue something closer to the NZ model.