Where to for Super Rugby?

[Quick Hands]

I always thought the definition of grassroots rugby was junior club and school rugby.
That is where resources are needed as a priority, especially in the light of the competing sports of soccer and AFL.

Many of us would see it that way, accompanied by a progression to senior rugby at either amateur or professional levels.

One of the issues is how you roll it out. Clubs are probably the most efficient way of doing so, but prior experience has shown that if you just give clubs a bucket of money, it doesn't necessarily get to where you want it to go. So a sensible administration would either provide resources in kind or provide funding as reimbursement on production of documentation.

 

[waiopehu oldboy]

It may have already been discussed but I found this buried in a NZ Hurld piece about the Sunwolves:

"The JRFU has said the 2017-18 Top League season will end earlier to give the Sunwolves more time to prepare."

Doesn't say how much earlier but anything's gotta be better than the 2-3 weeks they've had this season & last. Also has a JRFU official commenting on them being added to the Australian Conference but no mention of whether they'll still be playing some home games in Singapore.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11837580

 

[dru]

I've now gone through the Jones interviews. Well done to Clyne for fronting. Well done to Clyne for staying cool. Well done to Clyne for the on-going offer to return.

And for me a big thumbs up to Jones for venting. Found it kind of cathartic.

I found the right nterview with RWA somewhat shallower, I'm impressed with how they are trying to dig out of there hole and am hopeful for them. But Sauer does not come across as a future head of ARU (as Jones claims) he comes across as a pasionate driven leader of RWA. Go for it Sauer.

 

[sidelineview]

Many of us would see it that way, accompanied by a progression to senior rugby at either amateur or professional levels.

One of the issues is how you roll it out. Clubs are probably the most efficient way of doing so, but prior experience has shown that if you just give clubs a bucket of money, it doesn't necessarily get to where you want it to go. So a sensible administration would either provide resources in kind or provide funding as reimbursement on production of documentation.

True.
It would have to be managed properly, but it shouldn't be restricted to Clubs (if it does eventually happen that is)
There is a great need for the game to be promoted in schools.
The AFL has shown how its done.

 

[lou75]

I've now gone through the Jones interviews. Well done to Clyne for fronting. Well done to Clyne for staying cool. Well done to Clyne for the on-going offer to return.

And for me a big thumbs up to Jones for venting. Found it kind of cathartic.

I tend to agree, jonesdid ask questions that Clyne didn't like and I thought he was on the back foot for most of it and ended the interview like a knob offering to return anytime as if he would want to do that - but he had the guts to front up unlike billy p

 

[dru]

Just some lines from the announcement press conference on Monday morn. TBH, there was a lot of stuff said in that press conference that I haven't really seen in writing since.

To paraphrase what was said, they knew 5 teams was not feasible long term within the first year of the Rebels' operation, but there was no out until 2020 and so they made funding decisions with that in mind.

Thanks A. I had watched (the last 3/4) of the original announcement and have now caught up with Jones et al. Clyne passed through it on 2GB and wasnt given opportunity to expand.

So the claim is that they moved to the cut only once the opportunity presented itself. It's an explanation against incompetance claims - throwing money at the franchises subsequently wasted due to the chop.

I dont think it stacks up. Here's just one article around the accenture strategic review and a requirement for ARU to be defending or work with a cut. It's dated 5.3.17. There are others back to Jan.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...s/news-story/139460a21f099837e16dc97b9b3dd541

Sauer advises the RWA Aliance agreement was signed Aug last year.

 

[amirite]

There are many, many other successful examples on a smaller scale than Barcelona and Green Bay: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fan-owned_sports_teams

Agreed the Cameron Clyne interview was appalling, but it's definitely worth listening to Jones's interview with the President of Rugby WA Hans Sauer if you haven't: http://www.2gb.com/podcast/hans-sauer/

Sure, but are there many example of 15 year old sports clubs transitioning to this ownership model?

The successful clubs that have this model (there's many, I know) are old and have very valuable IP (many AFL clubs for example, or Barcellona whose jerseys you see in just about any country). I don't think own the Force is the silver bullet it's pitched as.

and where are the two powerhouse sides of Aussie rugby sitting at the moment?

They're not doing well, but I don't know the point you're making.

They're both reasonably recent Champions, so at least it's proven they CAN succeed.

 

[Joe King]

I know I've said it before, but...

If it’s going to be too difficult legally for the ARU to remove a team, then why not allow Australia to go it alone for the remaining 3 years of the broadcast deal.

With the remaining 11 Super Rugby teams, the NZRU could get a straight round robin with the top 6 moving through to the finals regardless of where they are from.

Travel would be fairer for the SA teams as they wouldn’t have to travel to Australia. They would essentially be on level playing field with the NZ teams.

Fiji could join Australia’s 5 teams and get a professional team set-up. And once they’re up to it, a further pathway is found for them.

Australia could have their 5 teams + Fiji* play home and away with a final = 11 weeks.

They could then have a State of Origin involving a proper NSW, Queensland, and a ‘Best of the Rest’ representative team = 3 weeks

The ARU could then offer the winner of State of Origin to play the winner of Super Rugby if they want. If not, no worries.

But surely going it alone in this way would bring in more revenue for Australia and create more interest in rugby than currently.

Any reduction in revenue for Australia under this set-up is countered by a significant decrease in travel costs, perfectly scheduled time-slots for Australian audiences, pure local content*, the benefits that come with winning staying within Australia, our own final, and a terrific new State of Origin concept.

After the remaining 3 years, if it’s not working for either party, then we can come back together again if people want.


*Fiji could play from home if they are ready. If not, they could be based in Western Sydney until they are. Australia is home to the largest Fijian population in the world outside of Fiji, and a large percentage of them live in Western Sydney. This may even partially solve the ‘Western Sydney’ problem!

 

[BLR]

Sure, but are there many example of 15 year old sports clubs transitioning to this ownership model?

The successful clubs that have this model (there's many, I know) are old and have very valuable IP (many AFL clubs for example, or Barcellona whose jerseys you see in just about any country). I don't think own the Force is the silver bullet it's pitched as.

1. Everyone has to start somewhere, I am sure many of the clubs had the same conversations when they implemented to model, no point throwing in the towel because it is slightly difficult.
2. WA Rugby is over 100 years old. We view our team as WA rugby, not as a heartless franchise.

 

[BLR]

I thought the fund was to buy the licence, and operate the Force, not a future fund for WA rugby development?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is both.

To go a bit further ahead in time but I can only assume if they are using Barcelona as a example there will be many revenue raises from fans so that we can buy the best players, invest in club rugby or anything that is needed as funds have never been forthcoming from the East.

The stated goal is to buy back the license & keep professional rugby in WA, take that as you will.

 

[amirite]

1. Everyone has to start somewhere, I am sure many of the clubs had the same conversations when they implemented to model, no point throwing in the towel because it is slightly difficult.
2. WA Rugby is over 100 years old. We view our team as WA rugby, not as a heartless franchise.

I appreciate your feelings, but IMO the financial feasibility of the Force long term is bad. Same for the Rebels, obviously, but the ARU are committing to trying to support one and there are other market factors.

If the ARU see supporting a franchise as a long term decision, would a temporary cash injection like Own the Force really matter? If it's a 50 year decision (hypothetically), the difference would be negligible. With no ARU funding the Force eventually dies, Own the Force or not. That's a fact.

The ARU see Melbourne as the larger marketplace because it is, not just for Super Rugby but for test matches too. As such, maintaining a strong rugby presence in the form of Super rugby is a positive thing. Particularly if for the next 50 years (hypothetically) it keeps certain fans engaged and proves to be a great bargaining chip for getting more cash and better locations for test matches (the real cash cow).

In saying this - I wanted 5 teams. At least to test to see if a 3X6 team conference model is feasible. But, if that is not going to happen, the Rebels make more sense than current commentary seems to be saying.

Not saying there's no arguments for the Force, but the idea that the Force is the correct decision and the ARU choosing the Rebels would be incorrect is ridiculous. There's two largely equal decisions at play, and they will decide for whatever reason they choose.

 

[Braveheart81]

But surely going it alone in this way would bring in more revenue for Australia and create more interest in rugby than currently.

I don't think this would hold up at all.

I think revenue would collapse significantly if you were reliant on an Australian only model that had very limited appeal overseas.

It would be a crazy risk because there are no funds to have a loss making venture for a few years whilst you try and build it up.

 

[amirite]

It would be a crazy risk because there are no funds to have a loss making venture for a few years whilst you try and build it up.

Haha, tell start-up land that! Uber, Amazon, etc. What a mess.

Anyway, back to rugby

 

[Omar Comin']

Sure, but are there many example of 15 year old sports clubs transitioning to this ownership model?

The successful clubs that have this model (there's many, I know) are old and have very valuable IP (many AFL clubs for example, or Barcellona whose jerseys you see in just about any country). I don't think own the Force is the silver bullet it's pitched as.

There are clubs who've started their existence with the fan ownership model. There's even a lower league Japanese football club that started in 2014 that's funded by online subscribers! But if you read through that wiki article you'll see there's teams using this model (or similar) of all kinds, new and old, successful, typically unsuccessful etc.

All that matters is whether they can get enough fan support to make the model viable. If the Force can get over $5 million then it has a chance of working. The closer they get to $15 million the better the chances. But you can also offer new shares in future too.

To me the ARU should have delayed any decision on cutting teams until after OwnTheForce either succeeded or failed. If it succeeds then it solves a lot of problems, and would provide a blueprint for other teams to follow.

 

[amirite]

There are clubs who've started their existence with the fan ownership model. There's even a lower league Japanese football club that started in 2014 that's funded by online subscribers! But if you read through that wiki article you'll see there's teams using this model (or similar) of all kinds, new and old, successful, typically unsuccessful etc.

All that matters is whether they can get enough fan support to make the model viable. If the Force can get over $5 million then it has a chance of working. The closer they get to $15 million the better the chances. But you can also offer new shares in future too.

To me the ARU should have delayed any decision on cutting teams until after OwnTheForce either succeeded or failed. If it succeeds then it solves a lot of problems, and would provide a blueprint for other teams to follow.

Fair enough, and I'm all for waiting to see it's success or failure, but is there a very similar example of this succeeding long term? It would be terrible if the model worked for a year or two, then after 5 years the money dried up.

I have no doubt Own the Force can work short term, but I think there's long term question marks.

 

[Omar Comin']

I don't think this would hold up at all.

I think revenue would collapse significantly if you were reliant on an Australian only model that had very limited appeal overseas.

It would be a crazy risk because there are no funds to have a loss making venture for a few years whilst you try and build it up.

Super Rugby is already a loss making venture for the ARU (and I believe all the unions).


But what if it's a separate stand alone conference within Super Rugby? Where say 2 of the teams in our 6 team conference make the playoffs with the top 6 from the NZ + SA + Jaguares conference?

 

[Omar Comin']

Fair enough, and I'm all for waiting to see it's success or failure, but is there a very similar example of this succeeding long term? It would be terrible if the model worked for a year or two, then after 5 years the money dried up.

I have no doubt Own the Force can work short term, but I think there's long term question marks.

The biggest long term question marks are on Super Rugby continuing to exist as a multi-continental sporting league.

The Force have existed for 12 years and needed propping up one time. Other teams when in trouble have been given additional handouts for nothing, while the Force had to sell their IP.

I would have hoped the ARU would have sold back the IP for $1 and allowed most of the OwntheForce money to go into a future fund to ensure their financial viability for the foreseeable future.

 

[KevinO]

Haha, tell start-up land that! Uber, Amazon, etc. What a mess.

Anyway, back to rugby

Dont forgot Big Bash

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk

 

[blues recovery]

above, i was making the observation that its far from over for the Force and i fear that Cox will up stumps and piss off.

personally i have also been very disappointed with the effort put in by the Rebels to galvanise support locally, seems fuck all really, which implies to me they know they are safe or gone, not "fighting" to influence the decision. of course i have no idea whats being done behind closed doors and there was no presser after the meeting with Pulver yesterday.

My take on the meeting
So Bill you guys have done a great job of destroying all of our reputations for the foreseeable future. Our projections were showing that we were well on the way to recouping our losses and running a profitable , professional , benchmark club into the future .
You have now irrevocably ruined that opportunity and made my position of owner untenable .
Andrew the club has been bleeding money for ever and that was not likely to change . I'll do you a solid and allow you to hand back your licence for no penalty and we all get out of this mess honourably
Bill you blokes really are from another planet . I expect all of the money that we have already sunk into the club to be reimbursed as well a proportion for our lost profit opportunity not to mention a payout of all of our obligations to staff , sponsors , venue etc . It's going to be a big number Bill.
With a small twitch in his backside Bill replies "I'll get back to you " and then coughs his way out of the room.

 

[I like to watch]

One of the objectives listed in the ARU Annual Report with a 30% weighting was :
Building sustainable success in professional Rugby...12/30

Which made me laugh out loud.
Thinking about it, they have obviously given 1/2 to sustainability & 1/2 for success.
4 out of 5 franchises will be sustained this year, so that's 12/15.
Meaning they graded themselves 0/15 for success.
Which is probably about right.
Some of the other objectives seemed designed to generate top marks, rather than to measure the success or otherwise of their performance .