Where to for Super Rugby?

[Quick Hands]

NSWRU 2016 Annual Report shows just over $650k to Premier rugby. It's down by about $100k from previous years, but it's certainly not nothing.

Which reflects the 2015 season, it's now 2017.

 

[p.Tah]

First up I don't support the Force being cut, however that was the ARUs decision apparently.

they must have thought it was a pretty straight forward decision and achievable decision to go down this path.

From Wayne Smith today:
"As manoeuvring room narrows on all sides, ARU directors must seriously be asking themselves how they have been drawn into these turbulent waters by an apparent lack of due diligence by ARU management."

Paywall sorry: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...y/news-story/337b64cfc1b8e64e023f0df1a1069fee

So who did the due diligence? Who provided them the legal advice?

 

[dru]

Which reflects the 2015 season, it's now 2017.

Look, I might have it wrong, but the 2016 report is for the 2016 year, but it was released in 2017. If I'm right I'm pretty sure its a period when Wamb was making his $nil claims.

Not that I have a problem with funding Premier, in fact it would seem strange if they don't receive funds from the NSWRU. But when you do the math around how much they receive per player , compared to community rugby, questions follow. Especially when the "grass roots funding" calls from the SRU seem so thinly veiled demands for funding to NSW Premier.

And of course claims to the contrary would just be wrong.

I've asked before to amy who know, when did funding to Premier change? Clearly NSWRU records funding to Premier in every Annual Report that has been released.

 

[lou75]

ARU directors must seriously be asking themselves how they have been drawn into these turbulent waters by an apparent lack of due diligence by ARU management."



So who did the due diligence? Who provided them the legal advice?

my sources tell me that 'due diligence' is an exotic term and is not one that shore boys are familiar with. They are more into old boy networks and introductions and anyone who questions their wisdom is wrong

 

[I like to watch]

NSWRU 2016 Annual Report shows just over $650k to Premier rugby. It's down by about $100k from previous years, but it's certainly not nothing.

Categorically no club receives one cent of this.
Notes also show participation fees for significantly higher amount & gate income of $172k

Back of a beer coaster, each club would remit $200 per head in rego fees
Average players per club 150 players, that's $360k add $172k from the gate.
What's left?
Happy to debate it further if you have any details

 

[The torpedo]

'They had to destroy the village in order to save it.'

 

[mst]

Not in past tense either

Lol, ah, so you have read all the pissing and moaning from Papworth and Co. I believe Jones may have even alluded to it on his radio show recently. So what is it about? The SS wants money from the ARU.

Seems there a history - "Papworth initially disputed the lack of funding given to the Shute Shield and other premier club competition, after a bumper broadcast deal announce at the end of 2015."

My comment was not about funding, rather the behaviour and rhetoric of the SS.

I thank you for making sure you made my point.

 

[mst]

Look, I might have it wrong, but the 2016 report is for the 2016 year, but it was released in 2017. If I'm right I'm pretty sure its a period when Wamb was making his $nil claims.

Not that I have a problem with funding Premier, in fact it would seem strange if they don't receive funds from the NSWRU. But when you do the math around how much they receive per player , compared to community rugby, questions follow. Especially when the "grass roots funding" calls from the SRU seem so thinly veiled demands for funding to NSW Premier.

And of course claims to the contrary would just be wrong.

I've asked before to amy who know, when did funding to Premier change? Clearly NSWRU records funding to Premier in every Annual Report that has been released.

Part of the issue Dru is this.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...l/news-story/2307a41f4bfef080702e961c3449314b

 

[dru]

Categorically no club receives one cent of this.
Notes also show participation fees for significantly higher amount & gate income of $172k

Back of a beer coaster, each club would remit $200 per head in rego fees
Average players per club 150 players, that's $360k add $172k from the gate.
What's left?
Happy to debate it further if you have any details

I've had a gut full of adversarial positions on this. Can we discuss not "debate"? This is one of those issues that will be either right or it will be wrong, and it really shouldnt be hard to prove.

Here's the report. I found it on a search "NSWRU annual report 2016". It holds reports going back many years.

EDIT: now actually with report url http://www.nswrugby.com.au/Portals/...alReport [ONLINE].pdf?timestamp=1492670766751

Scroll through the bumf to "NSWRU Ltd - Special purpose Annual Report for the year ended 31st December 2016" note published last month, March 2017. So that seems to answer the period.

Under Expenses is Premiership Rugby (659, 778). Inthe column 2016.

We might note the column 2015 is a touch over $700k, and from revollection 2014 was around $750k so its certainly on a decrease.

While we are on this, I have often heard claims how the Annual fee-thing introduced by Billy, does not go to the teams. I'd also find that problematic. I thought the idea was a sustainable fund for amatuer rugby. Obviously insurance is different.

 

[dru]

Part of the issue Dru is this.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...l/news-story/2307a41f4bfef080702e961c3449314b

Sorry, do you have the title? I dont subscribe and cant get behind the paywall.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

FFS - how have Papworth et al contributed to ARUCF ™?
All they are doing is showing that another particular vested interest - none of whom went to Sydney GPS Schools - disagree with one aspect of the ARU's mismanagement of rugby in this country since - I think we're now all agreed (even Wamberal) - 2003.
We should have common ground with them - its only once the ARU start listening that our interests conflict.
Edit: Possibly one did

 

[I like to watch]

Lol, ah, so you have read all the pissing and moaning from Papworth and Co. I believe Jones may have even alluded to it on his radio show recently. So what is it about? The SS wants money from the ARU.

Seems there a history - "Papworth initially disputed the lack of funding given to the Shute Shield and other premier club competition, after a bumper broadcast deal announce at the end of 2015."

My comment was not about funding, rather the behaviour and rhetoric of the SS.

I thank you for making sure you made my point.

you made a point?
It is about funding, but it's not about funding.....

If you don't put your unattributed quote in context, you are either ignorant of the context,or are disingenuous.
When Pulver initially reduced funding to SS clubs, he promised that funds would be reinstated when better times arrived (new tv deal) when he reneged, Dwyer in particular was scathing, suggesting that every part of Rugby (yes even premier clubs) was deserving of a share.
That the game in Australia was more than just the pro teams and the administration.

Since then, they have been lobbying for more funds to be spent on grassroots (not premier clubs) something that should need no lobbying.

 

[ChargerWA]

I think the variations that currently exist in the NRC deliver a very entertaining product as is. Maybe a few minor tweaks but no more than that. Things like a similar shot clock to the one employed in scrums for line outs. Say from the time the ball crosses the sideline you have 30 seconds to throw the ball in. I don't even mind it being moved back in terms of its window. In fact, I'd support it being moved back even further as not to overlap with either the NRL/AFL finals.

What the NRC needs is as you highlight is a heap more exposure and marketing focus. You mention the BBL amd I think it's the quintessential example of what smart, well conceived and implemented marketing can achieve.

I hate the idea of losing a franchise but if the ARU were to take the savings and pump it into marketing the NRC and gaining it some FTA exposure then it could work out better for the game longer term.

I'm not advocating for big changes. No one kicks penalties in the NRC so that's fine by me. Basically timing mechanisms like you mention. I'd also be interested to see what effect allowing the bench to be used as interchange would do for the game. Surely could only speed the game up.

And maybe a card for less thean 10mins for minor offences specifically around the breakdown to give the ref the option to go to the pocket earlier and try to stamp out the cynical stuff quicker. Most teams know they have a good half of getting away with shit before the ref is going to look at seriously carding them.

The rest could be achieved by just enforcing the existing rules. I'm sick of seeing the tackled player being dragged along the ground by the defender. Once theyre on the deck release the tackled player FFS. Kiwi teams are doing this lots to allow time for a fetcher to get in and compete on the ball.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I'd also be interested to see what effect allowing the bench to be used as interchange would do for the game. Surely could only speed the game up.

What a terrible suggestion: it will take the little man out of the game.
In NRL it has produced an archetypal body type for all positions with about 2c big men per team.
A better NRC law to adopt on a wider basis is stopping the 9 following the ball.

 

[Pfitzy]

For a thread about Super Rugby, this has taken a very weird turn into clubland.

 

[ChargerWA]

What a terrible suggestion: it will take the little man out of the game.
In NRL it has produced an archetypal body type for all positions with about 2c big men per team.
A better NRC law to adopt on a wider basis is stopping the 9 following the ball.

Still need to scrummage and win line outs. Without wining your set piece you can't win anything. I don't think it would get rid of the big men, you could just use them in 20min halves. Not using the 9 as a 9 would get rid of the smallest man on the park.

 

[dru]

For a thread about Super Rugby, this has taken a very weird turn into clubland.

Yeah it has. Sorry. Just this issue on funding keeps coming up, I kind of get tired that people think repetition means agreement.

And its kind of related. Right now I think Super will rot away. Which means we settle back to the clubs role. Once you start pulling on a thread, you know?

(Maybe not)

 

[Pfitzy]

You're right because, this being a very small pool, everything is related. And professional sport isn't so far from the rest in rugby's case.

 

[Pfitzy]

I guess when I think about how to "fix" super rugby nothing is going to change unless we have a development pathway for players AND coaches AND refs.

And right now, there's too much politics and nepotism. Too many boards. Too many committees.

It needs to be given to someone with a bit of vision, and an appreciation of the hard slog required to get things moving in the face of all adversity.

A benign dictator; someone who can inspire and punish in the same god-like breath.

Pfitzy for CEO.

 

[RedsHappy]

I guess when I think about how to "fix" super rugby nothing is going to change unless we have a development pathway for players AND coaches AND refs.

And right now, there's too much politics and nepotism. Too many boards. Too many committees.

It needs to be given to someone with a bit of vision, and an appreciation of the hard slog required to get things moving in the face of all adversity.

A benign dictator; someone who can inspire and punish in the same god-like breath.

Pfitzy for CEO.

Tesla wouldn't allow it, to free you up.........;-).