Where to for Super Rugby?

[Gnostic]

SMH article:-



http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/nsw-rugby-deserves-to-benefit-from-super-rugby-team-being-cut-roger-davis-20170412-gvjlnd.html



There has been plenty of internecine commentary. It would be really helpful I think if we stopped the rugby inter-state civil war.

"I'm unequivocally selfish in this" This quote and the thrust of the whole interview illustrates to me why we MUST get ride of the ARU and transition to an independent Commission to run Professional Rugby in Australia. This sort of insular cut throat thinking needs to be eliminated from management levels.

Centralising Pro Rugby makes sense because of the small size of the pool. Centralisation for the rest just will not work because the geography is just too large and the needs of small Unions and comps throughout Australia would become a managerial nightmare and consume far too much resources for the very limited benefits.

 

[Strewthcobber]

Do the Force still get ARU funding under the plan? If not, I imagine it would be substantially more then 2-3mil a year (which is still $600per person annually).

Presumably they would get the same amount of funding as all of the other licence holders from the broadcast share - around $4m a year.

They'll have to negotiate whether they get the additional funds that the other unions get, and if they will be front loaded like the Rebels. They would get that too I'd assume - that ends up being around $5.5m a year in total

 

[NTT]

Do the Force still get ARU funding under the plan? If not, I imagine it would be substantially more then 2-3mil a year (which is still $600per person annually).


I think you've come into the conversation half way. I am not making a comparison, I am merely saying Own the Force is not a silver bullet and shouldn't be treated as such.

I've always stated the pro-Rebels and Force cases are largely equal.

That being said, if the Own the Force model is as amazing as people think it is, the Force don't have a mortgage on it.

As ive stated elsewhere, there are many factors to still be negotiated and taken in to account. Under the Alliance Agreement, both parties have obligations, financial or otherwise to meet.
Outside influences like sponsorship, membership and other revenue sources need to be taken into account also.
No one has ever stated this initiative is a silver bullet solution. It has been stated though that this initiative is one part of the bigger puzzle solution.
Also no one has stated that this iniative is amazing or exclusive to one sporting franchise or that the Force own this model of funding. As stated multiple times in multiple articles this model has been used elsewhere.

 

[amirite]

Well you can look at many other sporting contexts. I mean, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fan-owned_sports_teams

Big list there of teams that have various fan ownership strategies.

If we were to be too narrow about something that has never been done in Australia for rugby then the Rebels would never have been privatised. We can go round and round.

I am not saying it cannot be done, I am saying nothing similar HAS been done and the potential of success is murky.

The ARU are making a decision based on the likelihood of success and there is no precedent.

No one has ever stated this initiative is a silver bullet solution.

You might not have, many have held it up as the key to the Force being a better prospect.

People have examples of fan owned franchises but nothing quite like the Force, which is to say - saving a fairly young, struggling, small market franchise that does not own intellectual property that has a large degree of value internationally.

You can't ignore context.

 

[BLR]

I am not saying it cannot be done, I am saying nothing similar HAS been done and the potential of success is murky.

The ARU are making a decision based on the likelihood of success and there is no precedent.

Would you not say the same of the Rebels ownership structure?

 

[NTT]

I am not saying it cannot be done, I am saying nothing similar HAS been done and the potential of success is murky.

The ARU are making a decision based on the likelihood of success and there is no precedent.

Not in Australia but in other countries and situations there are precedents for it being successful and unsuccessful. Much like there are precedents in Australia and around the world for the pros and cons of private ownership.
Recent examples of failed private ownership include Harold Mitchell in Melbourne with the Rebels and Nathan Tinkler in Newcastle with the Jets and Knights. Therefore we can also make the argument that private ownership is also not a silver bullet solution.

 

[amirite]

Would you not say the same of the Rebels ownership structure?

The Rebels already have the Rebels' ownership structure, the Own the Force is yet to materialise.

Plus, like I've said several times, I am merely trying to illustrate the point that it's bold to take Own the Force as a positive point of difference. To quote myself.......

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.

I think you will have noticed that the online chat (mostly on Facebook) is very pro-Force. I'm just trying to dispel myths here.

--

Not in Australia but in other countries and situations there are precedents for it being successful and unsuccessful. Much like there are precedents in Australia and around the world for the pros and cons of private ownership.
Recent examples of failed private ownership include Harold Mitchell in Melbourne with the Rebels and Nathan Tinkler in Newcastle with the Jets and Knights. Therefore we can also make the argument that private ownership is also not a silver bullet solution.

I never said that the private ownership was the Silver Bullet. That's a straw man argument that nobody is having.

If there's a history of private ownership situations that look like the Force that've been successful (apparently all around the world) I'd love to read about them. And that's genuine. I can't find anything close to the Force's situation.

Keeping in mind the limitations of the Force are as I've said, they're "fairly young, struggling, small market franchise that does not own intellectual property that has a large degree of value internationally." I'll add they also do not have a history of success.

Now, the Rebels are just as bad, but at they're not a "small market" team. It's a concept discussed more in American sports but it's relevant here.

I think we can also agree that the Green Bay Packers, who've virtually always been fan-owned, and Barcellona FC, who have all kinds of income streams due to international popularity that the Force don't, aren't apples for apples comparisons.

 

[NTT]

Thats why theres a legal challenge to the ARUs supposed criteria on financial sustainability around which franchise is cut. We are at least entitled to present our case to a fair and unbiased consultation process. The ARU came to us with preconceptions and looked to deny us a fair process.

 

[stoff]

Thats why theres a legal challenge to the ARUs supposed criteria on financial sustainability around which franchise is cut. We are at least entitled to present our case to a fair and unbiased consultation process. The ARU came to us with preconceptions and looked to deny us a fair process.

Is there? I thought the only live legal action was an injunction based on the alliance agreement terms. The issue I believe is whether they can or can't, not how.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[amirite]

Is there? I thought the only live legal action was an injunction based on the alliance agreement terms. The issue I believe is whether they can or can't, not how.

Correct.

 

[BLR]

The Rebels already have the Rebels' ownership structure, the Own the Force is yet to materialise

Yet it was an ownership structure that was untested in this context at the time. So what's the bloody difference?

Many of the successful fan ownership schemes on a smaller scale, let's see.

AFC Wimbledon were formed after their team was re-located, they have been rocketing up the leagues and see no sign of stopping.

German football as a whole has rules on ownership, Dortmund is traded on the stock exchange even, as a team Dortmund being a great team is a recent development, seemingly after the float.

Portsmouth FC after going bankrupt now have a fan ownership scheme and although are in League 2 seem to have stopped the rot.

Panathinaikos in Greece have a fan ownership scheme and seem to be doing quite well.

These are all recent developments in football caused by mismanagement or money troubles in the past, and it seems to have worked pretty well for them, all top clubs after the change-over or at least in recovery after past failings.

 

[amirite]

Yet it was an ownership structure that was untested in this context at the time. So what's the bloody difference?

Many of the successful fan ownership schemes on a smaller scale, let's see.

AFC Wimbledon were formed after their team was re-located, they have been rocketing up the leagues and see no sign of stopping.

German football as a whole has rules on ownership, Dortmund is traded on the stock exchange even, as a team Dortmund being a great team is a recent development, seemingly after the float.

Portsmouth FC after going bankrupt now have a fan ownership scheme and although are in League 2 seem to have stopped the rot.

Panathinaikos in Greece have a fan ownership scheme and seem to be doing quite well.

These are all recent developments in football caused by mismanagement or money troubles in the past, and it seems to have worked pretty well for them, all top clubs after the change-over or at least in recovery after past failings.

The different is the Rebels model already exists, the Force's is a hypothetical. The ARU are making a decision currently.

Can you really rule on viability because the Force have an idea?

Also, I think we can all agree that all of those teams are in hugely different situations to the Force. It's just not close enough to a one-to-one comparison to make projections from.

 

[BLR]

Also, I think we can all agree that all of those teams are in hugely different situations to the Force. It's just not close enough to a one-to-one comparison to make projections from.

Oh come on, you have just made a decision in your head and despite giving you CLEAR examples based on similar situations you aren't even entertaining the thought.

I assume the only relevant comparison to you would be if there was another team called the Western Force based in Perth in 2017 who had a successful Fan ownership structure? Sorry mate, you're having a laugh.

 

[I like to watch]

Papworths view on Super Footy & other ARU failures...

http://www.rugbynews.net.au/brett-p...ing-its-a-business-when-it-isnt-run-like-one/

 

[I like to watch]

The different is the Rebels model already exists, the Force's is a hypothetical. The ARU are making a decision currently.

Can you really rule on viability because the Force have an idea?

Also, I think we can all agree that all of those teams are in hugely different situations to the Force. It's just not close enough to a one-to-one comparison to make projections from.

Not on the basis that they have an idea.
But they are much further progressed than figures on a beer coaster.
They are entitled to be given the time, to confirm whether or not the concept has legs.
That's if the ARU are genuine in giving each franchise a chance to fight for their survival.

 

[Omar Comin']

I think you're being a little pedantic amirite. You might not get an example that is exactly the same as the Force, but there are many on that list of teams that were struggling financially who have been saved by the fan ownership model.

AFC Wimbledon for one is an example of an even tougher situation. It's a team that was started from scratch and entered initially into the 9th level of English soccer because Wimbledon FC moved to Milton Keynes for financial reasons. So it meets most of your criteria and then some - it's a younger club than the Force, in a small market (the Wimbledon catchment in London is far smaller than Perth) that does not own intellectual property with a large degree of value internationally. And since it was formed in 2002 it's moved from the 9th level of English Soccer to the 3rd.

Lets wait to see how the Own the Force initiative goes. Surely you could agree that if it can raise over $5 million that it will go quite a long way to shoring up the financial viability of the Force going forward. And obviously the more the better. Especially if the ARU aren't dicks about selling back the IP and allow most of that money to go into a future fund. Keep in mind the Force have existed for 12 years and got an injection of $3.5 million one single time. If they were to go another 12 years before needing a similar un-budgeted injection a future fund would cover it a few times over by then.

 

[Teh Other Dave]

I think that we get that you don't like the Shute Shield. Just so that you can set your mind at rest, it is now (from 2017) self-funding and receives no funds from either ARU or NSWRU. They even raised their own sponsorship to keep live FTA games on TV every Saturday.

I think that you'll find that all of the organisations that you've listed have been complaining about the lack of funding to "grass roots rugby" for some time. One of the problems that the ever-diminishing game of rugby faces in Australia is exactly this sort of small-minded us against them mentality - it does no one any good.

As an aside, the RFU in England provides funding to a range of clubs in order to advance the game there. This includes, gear, lighting, synthetic pitches, and a whole lot of other things. Funding clubs is actually a good thing; and I've made the comment before that any funding from the ARU or state unions to clubs should either be in kind (i.e. the provision of facilities, equipment or coaching) or in the form of tied grants (i.e. show us where the money has been spent and if it's on junior or youth development, we'll reimburse).

It remains to be seen how much, if any, of the savings made from cutting a super team make it to "grass roots rugby", but you can sleep soundly in your bed in the knowledge that those evil Shute Shield clubs won't be getting any cash from this.

Running from the top - no, nothing against the Shute Shield competition, just a bit rich that some sections of a semi-professional competition feel a need for funding, when there are other areas of community rugby that are in far more dire need of support.

I don't disagree with providing grassroots funding. My gripe was more with the definition of 'grassroots'. I note that some clubs still seem to have their bundy rum and telstra goal post pads and hit shields from happier times (i.e. last decade). Unfortunately, I think a bigger problem is that juniors aren't registering like they used to, and there seems to be a high rate of attrition of senior players in rural and subbies competitions. I'm unsure as to how much funding will help to stablilise that trend.

Again, the whole concept of a self-sustaining semi-professional competition (a good thing!) would suggest an area of less need than, say, a junior competition.

For the record, don't be fooled by the Reds' logo and jumping into the ad hominem side of things. I often attend SS matches when not playing or working (don't follow a team as such, and I don't hate Sydney Uni either - go figure).

Similarly, you have fallen into the trap of mistaking criticism for dislike. The bulk of this forum is essentially criticism, but if we hated rugby we'd be wasting our time on Big Footy or cycling forums instead. Or posting crayon drawings to NRL.com.

 

[brokendown]

amirite must be a ARU board member,surely?

 

[amirite]

Oh come on, you have just made a decision in your head and despite giving you CLEAR examples based on similar situations you aren't even entertaining the thought.

I assume the only relevant comparison to you would be if there was another team called the Western Force based in Perth in 2017 who had a successful Fan ownership structure? Sorry mate, you're having a laugh.

You've named two third division English soccer sides (obviously reasonably small and community based, certainly not playing in an international comp like the Force), a German soccer team with international recognition that can sell merch the world over (international IP value), and a Greek team that is the oldest club in the land and has always had multiple owners from inception (even if it just recently transitioned to a true "fan owner" model).

I honestly just thought you picked these at random from the wikipedia article because I can't see how they connect to the Force as a use case at all. How are they "CLEAR examples based on similar situations"? You just said "X team is doing this, and it's working well". You haven't really illustrated a point as far as I can tell.

Like I've said a couple of times, here are the key points of the Force's situation:

1. They are young
2. They are, by most metrics, struggling and do not have a history of success
3. They exists within a small market
4. They play internationally
5. Their intellectual property does not hold value outside of WA

**** Those that have been following my posts will see I don't consider the Rebels much better other than on being a 'small market', I'm talking about this through the lens of getting a like-for-like case study.

How can you expect the ARU to view Own the Force as a positive, in the context of a decision CURRENTLY taking place, when -

1. There is no close remotely close precedent that satisfies the majority of the above points
2. IT HAS YET TO ACTUALLY HAPPEN

 

[amirite]

amirite must be a ARU board member,surely?

Look through my posts. You can choose to say stuff like that because I'm not cosying up to your popularist opinion, or you can see I've been very fair when discussing what the Rebels and ARU have done and the weaknesses therein.