Where to for Super Rugby?

[The Snout]

Well you'll never get any of these people back by cutting their teams. And you'll lose a whole lot more people that have stuck around.

The causes for Rugby's decline are obvious for anyone to see. It's a combination of performance and the sporting market here becoming a lot more competitive over the last decade or so with the advent of the A League, Big Bash, further AFL expansion, big money for the NRL etc. And all these competitions cater to local audiences and aren't glorified selection trials for something else. Rugby is basically set up in Australia to be a bandwagon sport. It doesn't focus on tribalism and local engagement to the same extent as the competition and it suffers because of it - except in those times where one of our teams does well in a big international competition. Of course, our teams only play in international competitions so lean years are guaranteed. Meanwhile in the other sports Australian teams win and make the finals every year. They also play every week at a good time for over 20 weeks in the year.

Sums up my feelings too.

Other organisations like the Women's AFL, Big Bash, A-League and Netball seem to come in and start local comps from the ground up. You could say Netball has remade themselves twice in the last dozen years. But 'Rugby is different'.

 

[Braveheart81]

Really, Pulver agreed and supported this current Broadcast deal which has been in effect for less then 18months and failing miserably. I think in many areas Pulver had to make tough calls because of the dire state of the game financially..But this current broadcast deal was agreed to under his stewardship, someone in Australian Rugby needs to be held accountable to agreeing to the deal which has cause irreparable damage to Australia Rugby, if not Pulver, then who?

I agree but I imagine the entire ARU board thought this was in the best interests of the game. The story about the consultant advising the ARU that the Super Rugby expansion plans were a bad idea in 2009 and 2013 (Pulver became CEO in 2013) suggests that the board was already intent on pushing in that direction without Pulver's influence.

Do you think the likely position was Pulver coming in and convincing the board to ignore that advice and push for expansion or Pulver coming in and the board getting him to pursue the expansion on the ARU's behalf despite the negative reports they'd received from the consultant?

I agree accountability is important but perhaps more of that needs to be at board level. Would there be much point of the board throwing Pulver to the wolves because of their poor direction if they're going to repeat the dose with whoever the next person is?

Without knowing the intricacies of the ARU board's operation, there has been a lot of changes in recent years but the longest standing board member is John Eales who has been there since 2010. With that length of tenure I certainly hold him responsible for a reasonable portion of the direction the ARU has taken. If, as the longest serving board member he hasn't been strongly influencing the direction then he is also responsible (but in the opposite way, for not doing anything).

Brett Robinson, Geoffrey Stooke and Ann Sherry are the next longest serving board members having been appointed in 2012. These are the people who are guiding the direction of the ARU and questions need to be asked as to whether they are doing the right thing by it.

 

[Braveheart81]

Sums up my feelings too.

Other organisations like the Women's AFL, Big Bash, A-League and Netball seem to come in and start local comps from the ground up. You could say Netball has remade themselves twice in the last dozen years. But 'Rugby is different'.

Rugby is different. Those players have professional options and an international market for players.

Netball doesn't. The players are at the mercy of taking whatever is on offer because it is the best offer to play netball they have.

 

[Dave Beat]

1. The player numbers was based on a survey (rather than registered players) and compared 2001 to now. Pulver has been CEO since 2013. With the growth of women's rugby 7s and the Viva 7s the ARU would probably argue that numbers have improved in the last couple of years.

4. The Wallabies were runners up at the RWC in 2015. Our best result since also finishing runners up in 2003. We remain third in the World Rugby rankings.

From the ARU board's perspective it's hard to see them not being happy with Pulver's performance.

Whether the board is providing effective stewardship of the game is another question entirely and I would certainly like to see change there.

With Bill coming in in 2013 was it his moves that had us runner up in 2015, or was it us still having a bit of depth.

Since 2015 I can see many Australian Rugby Highlights unfortunately.

 

[Braveheart81]

With Bill coming in in 2013 was it his moves that had us runner up in 2015, or was it us still having a bit of depth.

Since 2015 I can see many Australian Rugby Highlights unfortunately.

I don't think there is much correlation really.

My post was in response to half saying that the Wallabies have had terrible results during his tenure.

My counterpoint to that was that in the only RWC during his tenure they had their best result out of the last 3 cups.

 

[mudskipper]

pressure on the SA rugby by wider politics isn’t good…. I’m unsure about where this will end up, but what I do know is there are quality clubs which want to play super rugby in Australia and New Zealand…

 

[mudskipper]

With Bill coming in in 2013 was it his moves that had us runner up in 2015, or was it us still having a bit of depth.

Since 2015 I can see many Australian Rugby Highlights unfortunately.

My biggest disappointment was ARU taking money off weekend juniors Mums & Dads to pay for ARU projects...

 

[TOCC]

I agree but I imagine the entire ARU board thought this was in the best interests of the game. The story about the consultant advising the ARU that the Super Rugby expansion plans were a bad idea in 2009 and 2013 (Pulver became CEO in 2013) suggests that the board was already intent on pushing in that direction without Pulver's influence.

Do you think the likely position was Pulver coming in and convincing the board to ignore that advice and push for expansion or Pulver coming in and the board getting him to pursue the expansion on the ARU's behalf despite the negative reports they'd received from the consultant?

I agree accountability is important but perhaps more of that needs to be at board level. Would there be much point of the board throwing Pulver to the wolves because of their poor direction if they're going to repeat the dose with whoever the next person is?

Without knowing the intricacies of the ARU board's operation, there has been a lot of changes in recent years but the longest standing board member is John Eales who has been there since 2010. With that length of tenure I certainly hold him responsible for a reasonable portion of the direction the ARU has taken. If, as the longest serving board member he hasn't been strongly influencing the direction then he is also responsible (but in the opposite way, for not doing anything).

Brett Robinson, Geoffrey Stooke and Ann Sherry are the next longest serving board members having been appointed in 2012. These are the people who are guiding the direction of the ARU and questions need to be asked as to whether they are doing the right thing by it.

A board doesn't simply push on in a direction against the wishes of the CEO and agree to a broadcast deal which represents 60% of the organisations revenue for the next 5 years. You seem to be attempting to excuse and exonerate Pulver from agreeing to this broadcast deal, he is the CEO of the ARU and he is a voting board member.

6 new joined the board during the 2012-2013 ARU Governance Review and restructure, thats almost 70% of the voting members and many of which were elected under the new 'independent director' ruling, Pulver had a clean slate to start with and a board without baggage, i completely reject with this concept or theory that the board had a motive and were pushing on with it regardless of the CEO's direction or input.

Pulver was presented with a completely fresh Board Committee that he was able to shape and influence, the CEO will and should drive the agenda for the organisation, the CEO is also the person best-placed to provide the board with the information it requires to make effective and informed decisions, and its up to the CEO to implement these decisions once made.

 

[TOCC]

ARU's current policy on discussing the future of Super Rugby

 

[The Snout]

Rugby is different. Those players have professional options and an international market for players.

Rugby is no different. The FFA, CA and netball compete for eyeballs and money as do us. They recognized a need for change in their own sports and have reacted and made change. And two of those have an international presence with professional options as well.

Local content works in this country. Every large sporting body seems to have recognized it, except Rugby, we went the other way and reaped the results.

 

[Braveheart81]

A board doesn't simply push on in a direction against the wishes of the CEO and agree to a broadcast deal which represents 60% of the organisations revenue for the next 5 years. You seem to be attempting to excuse and exonerate Pulver from agreeing to this broadcast deal, he is the CEO of the ARU and he is a voting board member.

6 new joined the board during the 2012-2013 ARU Governance Review and restructure, thats almost 70% of the voting members and many of which were elected under the new 'independent director' ruling, Pulver had a clean slate to start with and a board without baggage, i completely reject with this concept or theory that the board had a motive and were pushing on with it regardless of the CEO's direction or input.

Pulver was presented with a completely fresh Board Committee that he was able to shape and influence, the CEO will and should drive the agenda for the organisation, the CEO is also the person best-placed to provide the board with the information it requires to make effective and informed decisions, and its up to the CEO to implement these decisions once made.

I am not trying to exonerate Pulver. I am trying to say that there is collective responsibility from him and the board.

I think the CEO of an organisation like the ARU needs to be different than that of a public company. The ARU board should be the custodians of the game because that responsibility needs a longer term view than the tenure of a CEO and their personal whims of what are the right and wrong directions the organisation should take.

I find it harder to believe that Pulver arrived in the role with the task of deciding whether the ARU should pursue the Super Rugby expansion than I do that he was appointed to the role and was advised that the ARU as part of SANZAAR were pursuing Super Rugby expansion and it was his job to make it happen.

Clearly Pulver has been party to the expansion and presumably was 100% in favour of it. I also think when he took up the job that expansion would have been the direction the board wanted him to take the ARU in.

 

[Braveheart81]

Finally a member of the board says something!

 

[TOCC]

I am not trying to exonerate Pulver. I am trying to say that there is collective responsibility from him and the board.

I think the CEO of an organisation like the ARU needs to be different than that of a public company. The ARU board should be the custodians of the game because that responsibility needs a longer term view than the tenure of a CEO and their personal whims of what are the right and wrong directions the organisation should take.

I find it harder to believe that Pulver arrived in the role with the task of deciding whether the ARU should pursue the Super Rugby expansion than I do that he was appointed to the role and was advised that the ARU as part of SANZAAR were pursuing Super Rugby expansion and it was his job to make it happen.

Clearly Pulver has been party to the expansion and presumably was 100% in favour of it. I also think when he took up the job that expansion would have been the direction the board wanted him to take the ARU in.

Il say it again, Pulver was appointed in a 12 months period when the Board structure changed and 66% of the board of directors were newly appointed under the new independent directors requirements from the Arib Review.

If as you suggest, Pulver was pushed into making the deal happen by the ARU Board, then he is still to be held responsible. As a voting board member and CEO, failing to act is just as bad as acting on poor advice or failing to inform the board with the necessary advice to make an informed decision.

Pulver was appointed 2 years before the new broadcast negotiation was finalised, and 18months before the new structure was agreed upon. He had sufficient time to analyse the facts, address the stakeholders and make the best decision for the future of the game. he failed...

All the of the board are accountable for this failure, at the end of the day though, the CEO is the person tasked with driving the agenda, and the person best placed to provide the informations and facts necessary for the board to make effective and informed decisions.

 

[stoff]

Ok, so here the question to consider alongside the rumour over the cutting of the Force.

So "allegedly" the ARU are justifying the axing of one Aussie Super Rugby team to cut costs and save the ARU money.

The Force have a 5 years sponsorship deal reportedly worth a $1mil+(ish) per year plus other smaller sponsors. They also have the supporter buy-in scheme so financially they are getting there.

The Rebels owner is still owed several million dollars by the ARU and then if the team is still financially un-viable the ARU will have to rescue it by tipping in more cash (reports are it was costing the ARU about $3.5mil a year) and / or again take ownership of it.

So, which one make more financial sense?

IMHO the answer is the ARU have clustered the deal with Cox and the Rebels and it has cost them so much it is why we are here now. The idiocy of the deal now has them locked in and to pull out it will cost them dearly, but staying in it will cost them just as much, the difference being the when.

It will cost less to keep the Rebels.$3.4m over the remain 3 years, against $5.1m for the Force.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TOCC]

It will cost less to keep the Rebels.$3.4m over the remain 3 years, against $5.1m for the Force.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

what the economic cost?

 

[stoff]

what the economic cost?

Yes. Super Rugby teams other than the Rebels get $1.7m per year distribution. Rebels have a further $3.4m to come over the next three years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TOCC]

Yes. Super Rugby teams other than the Rebels get $1.7m per year distribution. Rebels have a further $3.4m to come over the next three years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry, what i means to say was; what is the economic cost?

Thats is the combination of all values attached to those individual teams. When we examine the true economic cost of disbanding a team there are a number of variable outside of the 'ARU grant' which need to be considered. Sponsorship for example, if one team earns $6million in sponsorship and the other team earns $4million, these are figures which need to be accounted for. As that sponsorship revenue is revenue for the game which is then lost, revenue for the game which previously paid the wages of professional rugby players.. How much does the Rebels invest in grassroots as opposed to the Force?

There's plenty more like; match day expenses which will no longer be earned, the fall in player numbers if a team is lost, the cost of losing a development pathway in Perth or Melbourne, whats the cost of not identifying the like of DHP in the future.

If rugby union was purely an company aimed at earning a profit, then sure you could easily examine each team in a cost/return analysis.. However, the governing body of a sport isn't an organisation purely about making a profit, its about being the custodian of a sport, encouraging growth and providing development pathways for the next generation of Wallabies. Have the ARU quantified the value of development pathways that these Super Rugby teams provide in those states?

 

[Braveheart81]

 

[RedsHappy]

If a person, or an organisation, was an avowed enemy of all things rugby, this remarkably calamitous 'SANZAAR S18 format review process' (which btw commenced a mere 8 months ago in August 2016) would be, is, the Gift that Just Keeps on Giving.

You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried; it's like an horrendous bad dream from which there is no awakening.

 

[Brumby Jack]

How good are statements..