Where to for Super Rugby?

[wamberal]

To me this seems like incredibly good manoeuvring from Pulver. Ultimately this is his fault. Whether the problem was caused by him or not. He's the CEO, and hasn't made the right adjustments to steer us away from the cliffs.

So it's as simple as that? Pulver could have done better? How, exactly? What "adjustments" would you have made, with the benefit of hindsight?

 

[half]

Super rugby has damaged its brand so badly after this fiasco I can't see it recovering without radical Changes.

Sent from my EVA-L09 using Tapatalk

Astute post and if I may add a little to it.

Next year the competition from Netball, Basketball, AFL womens, A-League will intensify even more. We have no plan to counter their growth, no plan "B" that we are aware of. We have a board who seem to think their major responsibility to rugby is a media deal.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

To me this seems like incredibly good manoeuvring from Pulver. Ultimately this is his fault. Whether the problem was caused by him or not. He's the CEO, and hasn't made the right adjustments to steer us away from the cliffs.

The position we find ourselves in today is the result of more than a decade of neglect and stagnation in regards to develooment across all aspects of the game. Probably longer. This all begun well before Pulver arrived on the scene.

There's no doubt that he has handled this saga very poorly. It's been drawn out and severely damaging to the game. But to put the blame on one man when the catalyst for our current dire positioning is as above at least a decade old is looking at the issues within the game far, far too parochially.

Pulver has actually done a number of good thing in attempts to rectify much of the messes. The NRC being a primary example. But honestly, if you want to assign blame to one man then it's his predecessor who sat on the ticking time bomb that is now exploding in a rain of shit we are seeing here today.

Again, Pulver has failed to get out in front of this and devise a more palatable solution but placing sole blame on just one man is specious thinking in practice.

 

[TOCC]

So it's as simple as that? Pulver could have done better? How, exactly? What "adjustments" would you have made, with the benefit of hindsight?

Take your heads out of the sand Wamberal... you keep demanding these simple answers and apologising for the ARU's mismanagement, do you have family on the ARU board?

I'l give you a simple answer, don't agree to a 2016-2020 broadcast deal if It's financially unfeasible and likely to alienate the fans... not even 2 years later and it's deemed detrimental to future the competition..

What a fucken joke, that's poor management if I've seen it, they didn't conduct their due diligence and agreed to a deal which has now done irreparable damage to rugby union in this country..Super Rugby as a brand has been forever tarnished and Rugby Union has fallen off the cliff for sponsorship and marketing value.

 

[Gnostic]

The position we find ourselves in today is the result of more than a decade of neglect and stagnation in regards to develooment across all aspects of the game. Probably longer. This all begun well before Pulver arrived on the scene.



There's no doubt that he has handled this saga very poorly. It's been drawn out and severely damaging to the game. But to put the blame on one man when the catalyst for our current dire positioning is as above at least a decade old is looking at the issues within the game far, far too parochially.



Pulver has actually done a number of good thing in attempts to rectify much of the messes. The NRC being a primary example. But honestly, if you want to assign blame to one man then it's his predecessor who sat on the ticking time bomb that is now exploding in a rain of shit we are seeing here today.



Again, Pulver has failed to get out in front of this and devise a more palatable solution but placing sole blame on just one man is specious thinking in practice.

I would like your post as it is very very accurate, but the NRC is not a solution to anything. Yes it could be in 5 to 10 years time. The FACT is that the time needed for the maturity of the competition (which is at best a risky prospect on balance) is far too long given the issues that the game is facing. These are the same facts that amateur managers (regarding remuneration levels) identified years ago so they shouldn't be a surprise to the highly paid "successful" business people at the ARU

 

[half]

The position we find ourselves in today is the result of more than a decade of neglect and stagnation in regards to develooment across all aspects of the game. Probably longer. This all begun well before Pulver arrived on the scene.

There's no doubt that he has handled this saga very poorly. It's been drawn out and severely damaging to the game. But to put the blame on one man when the catalyst for our current dire positioning is as above at least a decade old is looking at the issues within the game far, far too parochially.

Pulver has actually done a number of good thing in attempts to rectify much of the messes. The NRC being a primary example. But honestly, if you want to assign blame to one man then it's his predecessor who sat on the ticking time bomb that is now exploding in a rain of shit we are seeing here today.

Again, Pulver has failed to get out in front of this and devise a more palatable solution but placing sole blame on just one man is specious thinking in practice.

Except, he is cut from the same cloth and has IMO made Six terrible decisions.

1] He moved the Saturday morning local park games to Sunday.

Result a massive loss of junior players, and their parents, and looks just so bad when key corporate decision makers look at our future.

2] The NRC was rushed and in the format it was set up in, well words fail me.

Result, a large number of hard core rusted on never got on board and it opened up a war with some of the old guard.

3] Communication at large.

Result massive fall in coverage in areas we used to have.

4] The agreement to go to 18 teams

Result this thread says enough.

5] Cutting of a team

Result refer this thread.

6] No leadership on other plans or new ideas.

Result we have no fucking plan to get out of this mess.

In summary IMO the ARU has seen as I posted above their core responsibility to rugby in Australia was to get the best media deal from overseas partners i.e SA and Europe.

WCR he was not the cause of prior problems but he has added to them.

Australian rugby admins have always been lazy and want others to do the heavy lifting i.e. they don't work their arse off to make it work in Australia.

As for the BS that its the games fault OMG for the love of Mary that takes the cake.

 

[wamberal]

Have you considered the possibility that there was a commercial incentive to get the NRC launched when it was?

The decision to go to 18 teams, as I recall it, was not Pulver's to make. Neither is the decision to cut a team.


We cannot go it alone, we need partners. Sometimes those partners have different ideas. So we have a choice. Accept those ideas, or go it alone.



Do you really think we can go it alone.


If the game itself is not a big part of the problem, why are ratings, crowds, and general interest plummeting?

 

[Quick Hands]

Though Rn39, the real, essential problem for Super Rugby here is that

(a) the quality of the rugby play and skills on display is generally poor, and getting worse and

(b) our win-loss ratios are awful, Aussie fans ultimately want to see wins and

(c) Kiwis team have improved massively and are consistently showing us up as being hopelessly left behind by them en masse and

(d) the Wallabies are less and less successful and less and less inspiring and look a zillion miles away from ever again winning a BC, the degrading of the Wallaby brand 'trickles down' to the inbuilt fan enthusiasm at the next level

And if you want to have a look at the Wallabies post Cheika, with Larkham as the anointed successor, have a look at his anointed successor at the Waratahs.

 

[Quick Hands]

Gnostic, if you and I are not unusual, the ARU has a seriously hard lesson coming. One that they can leave rugby in complete comfort, where rugby lovers have no comfort at all.

Make no mistake dru, they have a serious lesson coming. I'm concerned that they seem to think that cutting to 4 teams will fix the super rugby problem. It may provide a short term sugar hit with a little more concentration of talent, but that will quickly disipate as more players head overseas. I tend to think that all it is going to do is put the day of reckoning off a couple of years.

Bearing in mind that they have contractual obligations to SANZAAR, we can't just walk out of super rugby (we could offer to have all 5 of our teams cut as I previously indicated), so we should be working on what we are going to do post 2020 right now. The planning should have started already. Sadly, I'll bet that little or no planning occurs.

 

[wamberal]

The thing is, we are all in this together, like it or not. The ARU represent us. They are there to do the best they can for the game.


They face very strong opponents, in this market, and those competitors have huge advantages. Whinging and moaning about the ARU is a bit like pissing in your jocks. Maybe it makes you feel warm for a few minutes, but that's all.

 

[RedsHappy]

And if you want to have a look at the Wallabies post Cheika, with Larkham as the anointed successor, have a look at his anointed successor at the Waratahs.

Ummm, yes.

One of the more idiotic and wildly unjustified by any kind of hard facts, performance KPIs achieved, or other objective measures ARU declarations is this inexplicable open 'anointing' of Larkham as the future Wallaby HC.

On what is this 'anointing' based?

Why must be this be done before Larkham has proved.......anything?

And why is there no independent, carefully considered process for assessing all potential high calibre candidates to succeed Cheika with zero 'pre-anointing' done prior to that obviously sensible manner of chosing that successor?

Yet again, the impression is one of chronic cronyism and insular bias and favouritism within the elite ranks of Australia's rugby administration.

Perhaps though, in the admirable new spirit of co-operation between St Leonards and Ballymore, the former has licensed the latter's proven 'global HC searching model principally centred upon recruitment activities within the adjacent car park'.

 

[RedsHappy]

The thing is, we are all in this together, like it or not. The ARU represent us. They are there to do the best they can for the game.


They face very strong opponents, in this market, and those competitors have huge advantages. Whinging and moaning about the ARU is a bit like pissing in your jocks. Maybe it makes you feel warm for a few minutes, but that's all.

You cannot seriously believe this rubbish and nonsense.....or do you?

 

[I like to watch]

The official crowd last night was 10,555. (Wartahs v Kings)

Are they counting limbs instead of heads these days?

 

[mudskipper]

Some interesting inputs today from Payto & Pando (extracted) in News Corp online sources (my emphasis):

"THE Western Force are growing more confident of remaining in Super Rugby after advice from lawyers, and will likely meet the ARU next week to present their case.​

​

However, the fact remains that if Melbourne Rebels owner Andrew Cox refuses to sell his licence, legally the ARU cannot remove them, leaving the Force as the only option.​

​

What the Force are banking on is a backflip from SANZAAR on the 15-team competition, to restore it to the 18 teams it has now.​

​

Perth officials believe they can exhaust enough money and time through legal avenues that the ARU will cave on their decision to remove a team, and they believe their South African counterparts in similar situations will do the same.​

​

But remaining with 18 teams and the same format, identified as financially suicidal by SANZAAR, would kill much of the already dwindling interest in Super Rugby now it has become clear that officials think it is second rate."​

​

Could any of these developments become any more bizarre and quite extraordinary in the context Super rugby faces in business and fan adherence terms?

The ARU was going to wrap all this up in a mere 3 days from when the culling announcement was made. They obviously thought it would all be 'a simple matter'.

Perhaps they lost the files wherein was to be found the Force-ARU Alliance Agreement and Cox's licensing agreement? Mistakes do happen after all, even in the best run organisations.

If the above media assessment is true, I find it truly staggering that:

(i) the ARU could sign a binding agreement with RugbyWA in August 2016 that, inter alia, would guarantee the Force's existence through 2020 and then, just 8 months later, decide the Force could be culled from Super rugby forthwith and thus give no consideration to the nature of that binding agreement, and​

​

(ii) the ARU would seemingly grant a full rugby playing rights license to a party in a major State that permits that party to retain that license solely at its own discretion and without relation to, e.g., team performance KPIs, commercial KPIs such as crowd sizes, sponsorship revenue etc, financial conditions, and such like. What now seems to be the case is that no such conditions exist in this licensing agreement and that Cox can retain the VIC rugby license at his own whim with no formal recourse to any of Rebels' team or business or such like outcomes that would in principle protect the ARU's interests if the licensee (Cox) did not perform to expectations. This all despite the fact that the ARU was/is itself providing Cox large, multi-year cash subsidies to prop up the Rebels' financial losses.​

​

If (ii) is in fact like that, in all my global deals with multiple licenses and license rights agreements, I have never seen a rights license agreement as dangerously one-sided and thus highly problematic (for the ARU) as this one involving the ARU and Cox appears to be, and Cox is clearly telling the media etc that this is in fact the way it is and, short of him selling his license, the ARU will have to lump the startlingly one-sided terms they have agreed to.

Well put but all contracts have out clauses, the Force ARU will too, ARU own the IP and the brand so its not great fir WA rugby... So the ARU just close themselves down in WA in super rugby... Pity

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

Except, he is cut from the same cloth and has IMO made Six terrible decisions.

1] He moved the Saturday morning local park games to Sunday.

Result a massive loss of junior players, and their parents, and looks just so bad when key corporate decision makers look at our future.

2] The NRC was rushed and in the format it was set up in, well words fail me.

Result, a large number of hard core rusted on never got on board and it opened up a war with some of the old guard.

3] Communication at large.

Result massive fall in coverage in areas we used to have.

4] The agreement to go to 18 teams

Result this thread says enough.

5] Cutting of a team

Result refer this thread.

6] No leadership on other plans or new ideas.

Result we have no fucking plan to get out of this mess.

In summary IMO the ARU has seen as I posted above their core responsibility to rugby in Australia was to get the best media deal from overseas partners i.e SA and Europe.

WCR he was not the cause of prior problems but he has added to them.

Australian rugby admins have always been lazy and want others to do the heavy lifting i.e. they don't work their arse off to make it work in Australia.

As for the BS that its the games fault OMG for the love of Mary that takes the cake.

The NRC has been relatively well implemented. It doesn't cost the ARU a cent. In fact it made money last season. The quality is improving. Rapidly. It's highly entertaining. And has seen strong growth both in terms of attendance and viewership. That's a pretty successful launch.

 

[BLR]

Well put but all contracts have out clauses, the Force ARU will too, ARU own the IP and the brand so its not great fir WA rugby. So the ARU just close themselves down in WA in super rugby. Pity

See, you say that, but why is this not happening? I think you are making too many assumptions.

 

[I like to watch]

The NRC has been relatively well implemented. It doesn't cost the ARU a cent. In fact it made money last season. The quality is improving. Rapidly. It's highly entertaining. And has seen strong growth both in terms of attendance and viewership. That's a pretty successful launch.

Without doubt the NRC was a great initiative, and he deserves credit for it.
But that is a small % of his responsibilities.
Just as he deserves credit for things he has done well, he warrants criticism for the things he has not done well.

 

[Quick Hands]

Ummm, yes.

One of the more idiotic and wildly unjustified by any kind of hard facts, performance KPIs achieved, or other objective measures ARU declarations is this inexplicable open 'anointing' of Larkham as the future Wallaby HC.

On what is this 'anointing' based?

Why must be this be done before Larkham has proved...anything?

And why is there no independent, carefully considered process for assessing all potential high calibre candidates to succeed Cheika with zero 'pre-anointing' done prior to that obviously sensible manner of chosing that successor?

Yet again, the impression is one of chronic cronyism and insular bias and favouritism within the elite ranks of Australia's rugby administration.

Perhaps though, in the admirable new spirit of co-operation between St Leonards and Ballymore, the former has licensed the latter's proven 'global HC searching model principally centred upon recruitment activities within the adjacent car park'.

It's much like the anointing of the Waratahs and Reds as being "safe" without even the pretext of the application of any form of objective criteria.

 

[Quick Hands]

The NRC has been relatively well implemented. It doesn't cost the ARU a cent. In fact it made money last season. The quality is improving. Rapidly. It's highly entertaining. And has seen strong growth both in terms of attendance and viewership. That's a pretty successful launch.

It's actually the one reasonably successful thing that the ARU has done in the past 10-15 years. It's not perfect, and I've suggested on other threads where and how it can be improved, but in comparison to any other act or omission of the ARU it's a resounding success.

 

[Highlander35]

Also, what the fuck are two Australian​s doing being regulars in the best NZ side.

Not against them personally, they're just taking the contract that comes to them but Allalatola got shafted at the Tahs (how the fuck did Tilse keep getting contracts) and Samu had two excellent NPC seasons before being offered a training contract with the Saders.

If an NZ team can pick talent better than Australian ones (obviously not 100% hit rate, but still), there's something very wrong.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk