ARU take over the Western Force.

[Braveheart81]

I think IP is a lot more than just an excuse. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in NSW the Waratahs name is effectively IP owned by the NSWRU. Its used to sell a license yo the professional operator - Waratahs Limited.

That license returns funds to the Provincial Union, from recollection something around $1M + 5%.

So it is a way to give the professional arm enough rope to run a professional sporting business, and gain commercial advantafe, and hold some governance style control.

I like the way NSW have this set up. Better than the Reds "High Performance recommendations" in my view. And a good model for WA.

The major difference between the way the Super Rugby licenses work is that the NSWRU, the QRU and I believe the ACT & Southern NSW RU all have permanent rights to a Super Rugby franchise.

The WARU and VRU don't have the same entitlements and effectively the Force and Rebels are more under the control of the ARU (and hence why they could 'purchase' the IP from the Force as part of the bailout whereas in the past they just loaned money to the Waratahs and Reds). The ARU would ultimately have the power to relocate the Force whereas they couldn't do that to the Tahs or Reds.

What Australian Rugby really needs are willing participants to inject money into the game. It seems to me that the current and historic area of investment in this sort of asset is in horse racing. If only we had some very wealthy Australians willing to spend a couple of million a year on the lifestyle asset of a professional rugby team rather than a horse stud.

 

[kiap]

I like the way NSW have this set up. Better than the Reds "High Performance recommendations" in my view. And a good model for WA.

Disagree. The NSW set up only makes sense as a transition stage to flogging off the soup team.

What's the situation there?

If the whole shebang is still under one ownership umbrella then it's pointless - and even detrimental IMO.

 

[kiap]

The same sort of IP deal is open to the Brumbies, Reds and Tahs.

It's just that those three aren't bust enough (yet) to be looking at signing on the dotted line.

 

[TOCC]

The sale of the Force IP netted $800k. It's not a multi-year bail out. And that's why the ARU will be running the show before the season is out.

Possibly, there's a few options on the table and one is the ARU taking ownership.
However, RugbyWA is hoping for other options which see them retain an ownership stake, a similar structure to the Hurricanes private equity model has been touted as an ideal model.

Super Rugby grants have increased for 2016, which will probably see the Force coming close to breaking even if not posting a small profit, which is why they haven't need a loan and why the ARU hasn't stepped in already. Yet whilst it may work for 2016, it's not a sustainable business model that's why they are looking at tee ownership structures.

 

[kiap]

True, but the ARU taking over the running of the organisation is only a holding option.

They don't want to actually own the Western Force. Why would they? Their aim is to see the ship afloat, as per the Rebels, for the interim until there is a new arrangement.

And a new injection of equity is going to take longer than the few months left for this Super season.

 

[boyo]

The problem starts early.
To get a Super contract you need the schoolboy resume.
Most with schoolboy resume have been in the elite koala club squads since 16.( where they excelled by being early physical developers & being faster/stronger/quicker than their peers)

training with these squads are basically 90% weights & breakdown drills.
Once you leave School the next step is 20's where the emphasis is being able to match the physically of men.
Skills are a secondary consideration.
Should we be surprised that we are producing strong athletic types with below standard skills?

So the TL, DR version is that physicality is more valued than skills.

No wonder that the NZRT generally win matches against the Wobs.

 

[wamberal]

A big man can be skillful. Every Test player should have good skill levels.

The difference between us and them is not size, or speed, or fitness, it is skill levels per se.


In the Soup and at the international level.

 

[Braveheart81]

I am confused who teams should be recruiting and selecting.

New Zealand selects the best young players big or small and they consistently are better than our best players, big or small.

It seems that many are arguing for a bygone era where there isn't competition to sign players and you can wait until everyone has played club rugby for a few years before taking your pick.

I don't think I've ever watched one of our schoolboy or under 20s games against NZ or South Africa and thought that their players looked small relative to ours. Generally it is the other way around.

 

[I like to watch]

I'm not convinced our Super franchises need to act as quickly as they do on School leavers.
There are literally a handful that were good to go immediately after School in the last 5 or so years.
Let the Farce or Rebels pay too much for Horwitz or Kellaway when they are babies.
If your program is good,they will be happy to come home in 2 or 3 years if they have continued to improve,and you can actually use them.
There is little or no pressure from O/S to sign school kids.

 

[brokendown]

the Brumbies signed West Australian schoolboy Joost on a full contract!

 

[Shiggins]

Can someone delete this thread. It's blasphemy

Sent from my SM-G928I using Tapatalk

 

[ChargerWA]

Can someone delete this thread. It's blasphemy

Sent from my SM-G928I using Tapatalk

Nearly Shiggins. Just replace the word blasphemy with prescient.

 

[Shiggins]

Nearly Shiggins. Just replace the word blasphemy with prescient.

There is definately something going on. You are right about that.

Sent from my SM-G928I using Tapatalk

 

[lou75]

I was just doing some archive reading from an article in Feb 2014 Chris Dutton interviewed Rob Clarke who is now the GM of Operations at the ARU and most likely the guy who would control the Western Force and this is what Clarke said at that time: "Melbourne Rebels boss Rob Clarke has warned that centralising Australia's Super Rugby operation risks "blowing up the game once and for all", declaring it "an absolute joke" if officials believe it can solely solve rugby's problems. "But to think that a pure centralisation model is going to solve the ills of Australian rugby is an absolute joke. And if anybody went down that path, [they'd] be running an enormous risk of blowing up the game once and for all."
So what exactly is the ARU's position on this ?

 

[RugbyReg]

What is the centralisation being considered? Previously (probably only 5 years ago) the ARU centralised all the franchise's (through a Shared Services Agreement) payroll, finances, IT and membership.

I know at the QRU they moved away from it from a servicing perspective, most specifically the last two as they wanted to do their web/digital presence differently in a way the ARU couldn't / wouldn't service (plus it took 24 hrs or something to update the web sites!). Obviously the Reds had different ideas on membership too.

Would be interested to see what exactly is the plan now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tex]

I was just doing some archive reading from an article in Feb 2014 Chris Dutton interviewed Rob Clarke who is now the GM of Operations at the ARU and most likely the guy who would control the Western Force and this is what Clarke said at that time: "Melbourne Rebels boss Rob Clarke has warned that centralising Australia's Super Rugby operation risks "blowing up the game once and for all", declaring it "an absolute joke" if officials believe it can solely solve rugby's problems. "But to think that a pure centralisation model is going to solve the ills of Australian rugby is an absolute joke. And if anybody went down that path, [they'd] be running an enormous risk of blowing up the game once and for all."
So what exactly is the ARU's position on this ?

With respect to Rob, he said that as the CEO of one of the two clubs most likely to get boned.

He's now a headquarters man, presumably gunning to replace Pulver, so his position would likely have shifted somewhat...

 

[TOCC]

Again there is no game getting played in AEST prime time, whilst the Force are playing their home game at 9pm, that's the second time in 3 weeks rugby union has given up the prime time slot due to poor scheduling.

Obviously the Force can't play earlier since it's a Friday, so move them to Saturday prime time and move the Reds from Saturday to Friday.. Consumers need consistency in their content, they want to know that every Friday/Sat night at 7:30pm they can turn on the tv and there is a Live Super Rugby match for them to watch. It's another reason why Super Rugby will never receive much appetitive from FTA, poor scheduling decisions like this.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[I like to watch]

With respect to Rob, he said that as the CEO of one of the two clubs most likely to get boned.

He's now a headquarters man, presumably gunning to replace Pulver, so his position would likely have shifted somewhat.

There's nothing like self interest to change someone's perspective!

 

[Jagman]

Perhaps they don't want to compete with the sevens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lou75]

Possibly, there's a few options on the table and one is the ARU taking ownership.
However, RugbyWA is hoping for other options which see them retain an ownership stake, a similar structure to the Hurricanes private equity model has been touted as an ideal model.

Super Rugby grants have increased for 2016, which will probably see the Force coming close to breaking even if not posting a small profit, which is why they haven't need a loan and why the ARU hasn't stepped in already. Yet whilst it may work for 2016, it's not a sustainable business model that's why they are looking at tee ownership structures.

I disagree. The new tv rights deal is the icing that will put all clubs in the black within one year. In the current model each franchise gets around 10-12 million + (ARU 5.8, Match Rev 2-3, Sponsorships 2-3, licensing ? (extra ARU payments for Rebels ?)) and it is up to the Financial controller of each franchise to stay within that budget. The ARU is hardly the right quarter to do this. They can assist by not allowing a wage push between clubs trying to outbid each other for players, for example, but they are too '3 first club' centric to be really trusted to 'take over the running' of Force for the benefit of Force.