Where to for Super Rugby?

[Quick Hands]

Because it's not part of the general funding the teams receive from the ARU.....

If the Rebels had that many Wallabies in their team then they would get that money too on top of the already increased amount from the ARU.

The reference to the Brumbies' top ups also seemed to have no relevance to the discussion except for the purpose of inciting the Rebels members.

It's not part of the general funding, but the franchises concerned still receive the benefit, i.e. access to the player without having to pay for it.

 

[Slim 293]

It's not part of the general funding, but the franchises concerned still receive the benefit, i.e. access to the player without having to pay for it.

And that's something the Rebels are entitled to as well........

Still, not part of the basic funding arrangement, and not relevant in the context of what was being discussed.

 

[stoff]

Imagine the hue and cry if the ARU had attempted to enforce centralisation. The reaction from the Bumblies alone would be nuclear. They hate everybody else with a vengeance, always have, especially those from head office...NSW in general is the big enemy. Always was.

I reckon they have the ARU on the Xmas card list this year


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Slim 293]

Imagine the hue and cry if the ARU had attempted to enforce centralisation. The reaction from the Bumblies alone would be nuclear. They hate everybody else with a vengeance, always have, especially those from head office...NSW in general is the big enemy. Always was.

I reckon they have the ARU on the Xmas card list this year

 

[James Pettifer]

I think there it is pretty evident that they are trying to increase the centralisation and collaboration of the Super Rugby teams similar to the NZ model.

Why that wasn't done years ago is another question.

I'd say the privately owned franchise was more out of necessity than a desire to have that model.

Ultimately I think improving the level of centralisation will improve both the Super Rugby teams and the Wallabies.

Agreed.

What stuns me is that the ARU have no interest in the finances of any of the franchises other than throwing in an extra $28 million over the past 5 years. Surely if you are the people holding the purse strings you would put some sort of controls in. Maybe not immediately but surely once you have hit a few million thrown away after budget.

 

[KevinO]

When the Waratahs brought Beale and Phipps back from Melbourne it was two players who wanted to return to Sydney. Beale went to Melbourne for more money and it obviously worked out terribly for all parties. Phipps went there for opportunity originally and then was in a position where his career was at the point he could get the starting gig in Sydney.

The Waratahs lost 4 Wallabies before the 2014 season which explains why could afford to bring those players back.

Actually Phipps was happy to stay in Melbourne except they could not match the wage demands from his manager. The Tahs could as they had more room in the Salary cap due to have so many players on top ups. So the Rebels signed Burgess.

 

[lou75]

Agreed.

What stuns me is that the ARU have no interest in the finances of any of the franchises other than throwing in an extra $28 million over the past 5 years. Surely if you are the people holding the purse strings you would put some sort of controls in. Maybe not immediately but surely once you have hit a few million thrown away after budget.

exactly, you would think that CEO Pulver would be responsible for the day-to-day management and operations of the company with key management including:
- developing and implementing corporate strategies and making recommendations on significant corporate strategic initiatives - his strategies change from month to month a quick read on TWF shows a whole lot of statements from Pulver about how sustainable AUstralian rugby is in 2016 and then bam, in 2017 - we have to cut a team, the model is unsustainable.
- developing an annual budget and capital expenditure plan and managing day-to-day operations within the budget - no budgets for franchises, no plan or managing day-to-day operations , just write cheques then whinge about the big spend later
- maintaining effective risk management and compliance management frameworks - no risk management re the sale of melbourne rebels to Cox, no due diligence into the man as to whether he could run a franchise or whether he had the resources to run a franchise
- appointing and determining the terms of appointment of senior management, developing and maintaining succession plans and evaluating the performance of key executives - he has shot his second in charge, effectively leaving the succession plans empty
Pretty much a fail on all points Pulver

 

[stoff]

Do you actually know what that means?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Slim 293]

Do you actually know what that means?

Strong yields?

 

[Quick Hands]

And that's something the Rebels are entitled to as well....

Still, not part of the basic funding arrangement, and not relevant in the context of what was being discussed.

No it's not part of the basic funding arrangement, but IMO it's valid point when comparing ARU expenditure on the different franchises which is I think was what Clyne was doing.

If, for example the ARU gave a grant of $1,000,000 to franchise A and gave an $800,000 grant to franchise B but at the same time was paying $200,000 towards the salary of a player at franchise B then both franchises are receiving the same dollar funding from the ARU.

To use an analogy; if in scenario A, rich kid asks rich parents for $50,000 to buy a car and rich parents hand over the cash and kid buys the car, wheras in scenario B rich kid asks rich parents for $50,000 to buys a car, but parents buy the car for $50,000 and give the kid the car - it's the same result in terms of the benefit obtained by rich kid.

 

[Slim 293]

I'm not sure if you used the analogy right.........

 

[dru]

^^^QH, I'm with you, it seems sufficiently self evident that it doesn't need discussion.

I understand that the market is skewed - if we decide we want to get Folau into rugby and keep him, it's going to cost funds that cant be willy nilly repeated at each franchise. And over all it's a good thing for Aus rugby.

But it's skewing the reporting on money that each franchise is costing when it isn't considered somehow. Qld and NSW are way ahead on this score. EG I wonder how much top up funds went to Qld in 2017 for, say, Moore. Smith (probably nil). Higgers (nil I think there). Cooper. Housten.

I also would have that most sporting spending systems in players, when trying to level the playing field, would actually skew the funding the opposite way, and make sure the Lions roar goes to Force and Rebels - or who ever was trailing on the table.

 

[James Pettifer]

I also would have that most sporting spending systems in players, when trying to level the playing field, would actually skew the funding the opposite way, and make sure the Lions roar goes to Force and Rebels - or who ever was trailing on the table.

Definitely what the AFL tries to do - particularly when moving into new areas.

The other thing to consider is that having better players attracts sponsors and attendance. Better players should (all things being equal) also result in better performance thus attracting sponsors and attendance. Both of which then obviously result in more money coming into the franchise.

So spending an extra $2.6 million on the Waratahs not only results in them being able to afford materially better players but they also should be getting more income as a direct result of having those better players.

 

[ACT Crusader]

If, for example the ARU gave a grant of $1,000,000 to franchise A and gave an $800,000 grant to franchise B but at the same time was paying $200,000 towards the salary of a player at franchise B then both franchises are receiving the same dollar funding from the ARU.

To use an analogy; if in scenario A, rich kid asks rich parents for $50,000 to buy a car and rich parents hand over the cash and kid buys the car, wheras in scenario B rich kid asks rich parents for $50,000 to buys a car, but parents buy the car for $50,000 and give the kid the car - it's the same result in terms of the benefit obtained by rich kid.

Eh?

Those two examples aren't comparable. As I understand it, it's not just the one bucket of money that is sliced in a different ways. Aren't the franchises earning revenue as well?

 

[James Pettifer]

exactly, you would think that CEO Pulver would be responsible for the day-to-day management and operations of the company with key management including:

- developing and implementing corporate strategies and making recommendations on significant corporate strategic initiatives - his strategies change from month to month a quick read on TWF shows a whole lot of statements from Pulver about how sustainable AUstralian rugby is in 2016 and then bam, in 2017 - we have to cut a team, the model is unsustainable.
- developing an annual budget and capital expenditure plan and managing day-to-day operations within the budget - no budgets for franchises, no plan or managing day-to-day operations , just write cheques then whinge about the big spend later
- maintaining effective risk management and compliance management frameworks - no risk management re the sale of melbourne rebels to Cox, no due diligence into the man as to whether he could run a franchise or whether he had the resources to run a franchise
- appointing and determining the terms of appointment of senior management, developing and maintaining succession plans and evaluating the performance of key executives - he has shot his second in charge, effectively leaving the succession plans empty
Pretty much a fail on all points Pulver

Kinda like if my kid spends all their money ... and so I give them a $100k. Then next year they do the same and I give them another $100k. And the year after and the year after and the year after. At what point do you say, hey hang on, I'm looking at your budget and making sure that this doesn't happen again - for me, it would be significantly less than $28 million on 5 kids particularly that bloody youngest who has cost me $11 million.

 

[James Pettifer]

Eh?

Those two examples aren't comparable. As I understand it, it's not just the one bucket of money that is sliced in a different ways. Aren't the franchises earning revenue as well?

Not the greatest example - but note my point above - better players should lead to better earning revenue

 

[ACT Crusader]

Not the greatest example - but note my point above - better players should lead to better earning revenue

It's definitely a factor no doubt, but as I'm sure you appreciate, management, marketing, on field performance, financial investments, game experience, engagement with community etc are all just as important as the profile of the names on the roster.

In saying all that, and this may have been mentioned on this forum before, but if the high profile players are a key draw card for revenue, then there's a problem here in OZ given there aren't that many "high profile" players and the few that are there are spread thin across so many teams.......

 

[James Pettifer]

It's definitely a factor no doubt, but as I'm sure you appreciate, management, marketing, on field performance, financial investments, game experience, engagement with community etc are all just as important as the profile of the names on the roster.

In saying all that, and this may have been mentioned on this forum before, but if the high profile players are a key draw card for revenue, then there's a problem here in OZ given there aren't that many "high profile" players and the few that are there are spread thin across so many teams...

It was pretty notable that attendances for the Rebels improved when O'Connor and Beale were playing. My wife enjoyed the games more as the play was more exciting (or that was her excuse anyway). But it is a combination between marketability, success and "exciting play" which drives a large number of the less core fans.

Other factors of course have an impact including the size of the market and prominence of rugby in the area.

The Waratahs really roll 6 on all of these things that are out of their control. Sydney is the largest city in Australia. Sydney is a rugby union city. The Waratahs get a much bigger spend in player payments. So the Waratahs would normally get better sponsorship and better attendances (they definitely get the later, the former is just a guess).

 

[lou75]

Kinda like if my kid spends all their money . and so I give them a $100k. Then next year they do the same and I give them another $100k. And the year after and the year after and the year after. At what point do you say, hey hang on, I'm looking at your budget and making sure that this doesn't happen again - for me, it would be significantly less than $28 million on 5 kids particularly that bloody youngest who has cost me $11 million.

yes

 

[Quick Hands]

Eh?

Those two examples aren't comparable. As I understand it, it's not just the one bucket of money that is sliced in a different ways. Aren't the franchises earning revenue as well?

Yes they are.

If we are comparing what financial advantage franchises receive from the governing body.

What the franchises earn is completely different from what they are given. Being given something in kind is essentially the same as being given it in cash. Unless people choose to try to find reasons why it's not.