ARU take over the Western Force.

[boyo]

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

Is it 3 in 3 weeks?

 

[D-Box]

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.

I think we could play earlier and the 7pm kick-off probably hurts the crowd as kids get tired and it is hard to keep them interested up to 9 (trust me I regularly take an 8 & 6 yo to these games). The AFL run 5:40 bounce downs at Subi on a Friday so I don't know why we don't do something similar for the Force - particularly against a Kiwi team. Does SA money talk that loud?

 

[TOCC]

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.

So what is it you disagree with?
The broadcast rights are a set figure which won't grow for the next 5 years, they are also compensating for one less home game every 2 seasons.

Been in the black for 2016 means nothing if you're expenses are growing at 5% PA and will be back in the red by 2018, that is the unsustainably issue.

 

[lou75]

So what is it you disagree with?
The broadcast rights are a set figure which won't grow for the next 5 years, they are also compensating for one less home game every 2 seasons.

Been in the black for 2016 means nothing if you're expenses are growing at 5% PA and will be back in the red by 2018, that is the unsustainably issue.

I think the current model is sustainable if a financial controller can contain expenses. Hell 10-12 million base Revenue is a lot of money. The expenses are broadly: Player payments 5 million, Off field staff 3 million, Match operations, marketing and services 2 million = about 10 million. Where is it written that costs must increase by 5% pa?

 

[HighPlainsDrifter]

Maybe the marketing departments are approaching the wrong potential sponsors .... for example the Crusaders Have a sponsor Infor who have operations globally , which for a company with scale and reach would consider that patronage a pretty cost effective deal . As the TV audience expands to Japan , Argentina etc for the Super comp we should be looking to capitalize on the audience growth despite no free to air in Australia. Have any of the Super teams with products in the expanded reach markets lift their patronage accordingly ? I suspect not ....

 

[lou75]

Maybe the marketing departments are approaching the wrong potential sponsors .. for example the Crusaders Have a sponsor Infor who have operations globally , which for a company with scale and reach would consider that patronage a pretty cost effective deal . As the TV audience expands to Japan , Argentina etc for the Super comp we should be looking to capitalize on the audience growth despite no free to air in Australia. Have any of the Super teams with products in the expanded reach markets lift their patronage accordingly ? I suspect not ..

Yes agreed, just as Melbourne Rebels was previously sponsored by RABO Direct which gave them a very cost effective entry into the Australian market place.

 

[TOCC]

I think the current model is sustainable if a financial controller can contain expenses. Hell 10-12 million base Revenue is a lot of money. The expenses are broadly: Player payments 5 million, Off field staff 3 million, Match operations, marketing and services 2 million = about 10 million. Where is it written that costs must increase by 5% pa?

Can't argue with logic like that

 

[TOCC]

TV Ratings
Force vs Crusaders: 37k

This is my issue, no one in WA is watching the Force, this is the second time this season that the Force have had ratings below 40k in WA prime time.

Meanwhile, there was no super rugby match played in the AEST 'prime time' spot.

 

[brokendown]

there is only one more friday home game for the Force this season

 

[D-Box]

TV Ratings
Force vs Crusaders: 37k

This is my issue, no one in WA is watching the Force, this is the second time this season that the Force have had ratings below 40k in WA prime time.

Meanwhile, there was no super rugby match played in the AEST 'prime time' spot.

That because they go to the game or are in pubs. The game should start around 540 if there are no east coast games. This is the bounce down for the AFL games on Friday.

Considering that nib is about a 20 min walk from the cbd it would be great time (or give it another 20 min so the outskirts can train in). This would put the game in prime time for the east coast while making the game in a more family friendly time slot. Win - win. The only reason not to do this would be if we were playing a south African team. The likelihood though that we would pick up more viewers in SA than we lose from the east coast or NZ when playing a derby or kiwi team is ridiculous. Bring back the early start!

Sent from my HTC_0PJA10 using Tapatalk

 

[ChargerWA]

TV Ratings
Force vs Crusaders: 37k

This is my issue, no one in WA is watching the Force, this is the second time this season that the Force have had ratings below 40k in WA prime time.

Meanwhile, there was no super rugby match played in the AEST 'prime time' spot.

You saw what happened in the game. Clever Force supporters have realised its not worth putting yourself through the pain. They don't watch them on TV and they don't go to the game. They just assume they win each week and live a blissful existence.

 

[brokendown]

interesting though TOCC-in the second most powerful rugby state in Australia your team tonight attracted 17000 fans
In a state where rugby is virtually unheard of,we attracted 12000 last night

 

[TOCC]

Not looking to make this a QLD vs WA debate, just painting the reality of the situation.

If the Force are regularly attracting ratings of 37k then it's going to impact on their ability to raise sponsorship and make the club financially sustainable.

QLD is obviously not the standard to follow, but they still manages to receive decent ratings even in poor seasons; REDvHIG attracted 87k viewers last night.

The question I'm posing is would the Force benefit by playing their home games in the AEST prime time rather then 7:30AWST/9:30AEST. As it stands, there doesn't seem to be the local audience(WA) to justify keeping it in a time slot where it won't attract viewers.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[brokendown]

both home games against the Tahs and the Blues are Saturday fixtures at 5:40 local time-so that goes some way to meeting your suggestion.
Trouble with that is that local club players,supporters,officials etc have no time to get to the game after their matches- significantly lowering attendance figures at the Force game
I know KO in local games have been bought forward 30 minutes on those days,but it will still be too much of a rush for a lot to bother going

 

[D-Box]

both home games against the Tahs and the Blues are Saturday fixtures at 5:40 local time-so that goes some way to meeting your suggestion.
Trouble with that is that local club players,supporters,officials etc have no time to get to the game after their matches- significantly lowering attendance figures at the Force game
I know KO in local games have been bought forward 30 minutes on those days,but it will still be too much of a rush for a lot to bother going

But the previous games we are talking about were Friday games. It is like the scheduling was crated to kill the Force. Friday night games scheduled late, poor ratings on east coast and NZ. Then we get 540 games on Sat which hurt crowds withe local rugby while also hurting the clubs. As a local fan would prefer 540 Friday games with the Sat starting around 7

Sent from my HTC_0PJA10 using Tapatalk

 

[Rugbynutter39]

Not looking to make this a QLD vs WA debate, just painting the reality of the situation.



If the Force are regularly attracting ratings of 37k then it's going to impact on their ability to raise sponsorship and make the club financially sustainable.



QLD is obviously not the standard to follow, but they still manages to receive decent ratings even in poor seasons; REDvHIG attracted 87k viewers last night.



The question I'm posing is would the Force benefit by playing their home games in the AEST prime time rather then 7:30AWST/9:30AEST. As it stands, there doesn't seem to be the local audience(WA) to justify keeping it in a time slot where it won't attract viewers.







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just sitting down to watch crusaders vs force replay I taped on Fox sports.

Just reminded me looking at Force line up how on paper - Force actually very strong side - and my immediate thoughts are - they desparately need to invest in some quality coaching as foley has to go and they also need a specialist backs coach.

They might be not getting flash TV ratings at the mo but most would probably agree that WA key market for rugby for ARU and just not been managed well to date through past history all aware of. If any serious rugby fan thinks we don't need a Super Rugby side in WA I think you have got it seriously wrong. The Force have just not have a good solid base to work from (won't go into the history) but would be backward step to not have WA provide a super rugby franchise. Surely all other super rugby supporters must agree with this?

I don't think all is broken, but need some outside help to get Force on better footholds. ARU stepping up which is good to see. But need a rich benefactor to invest in the Force as part of a private ownership bid. The model for all super rugby sides whether now or in the future.

 

[Quick Hands]

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?

You nailed it there.

Somewhere, someone about 15 years ago decided that junior and school sport wasn't about having fun and learning the game - it was to be henceforth part of a "pathway".

So now we have a generation of kids who are all coached in the same robotic way and have any flair and individuality coached out of them. They be better off down at the park with their mates playing a game of pick-up touch footy than at some of the elite training sessions that I've seen.

 

[Braveheart81]

Oh come on. What is the alternative? Which countries are doing it differently?

I don't disagree that there should be a greater emphasis on skills training but more professionally oriented training from a younger age is the norm across every elite sport anywhere.

There seems to be some romantic notion that better outcomes will be achieved by getting rid of all these programs and starting with a blank slate when the kids turn 18.

If anything, we are currently paying the price for being late to the party with the elite development pathways for juniors which is being shown up by a consistent drop down the pecking order at junior world championships compared with our past results.

Anyway, this is a divergence from the ARU and Western Force debate.

 

[Quick Hands]

Oh come on. What is the alternative? Which countries are doing it differently?

I don't disagree that there should be a greater emphasis on skills training but more professionally oriented training from a younger age is the norm across every elite sport anywhere.

There seems to be some romantic notion that better outcomes will be achieved by getting rid of all these programs and starting with a blank slate when the kids turn 18.

If anything, we are currently paying the price for being late to the party with the elite development pathways for juniors which is being shown up by a consistent drop down the pecking order at junior world championships compared with our past results.

Anyway, this is a divergence from the ARU and Western Force debate.

Read the post again and you'll see that it doesn't say anything about starting with a blank slate when they are 18. That's a conclusion you have drawn from somewhere else.

If these elite programs are so good, how come there has been a 6.7% decrease in the number of players in 15 a side rugby over the past 12 months.

You see there's the world of difference between coaching programs i.e. coaching everyone well with the apporpriate skills and what you refer to as "elite development pathways" where apparently only those considered to be elite are chosen at an early age and the rest just make do.

EDIT: You ask which countries are doing it differently. New Zealand for one.

 

[I like to watch]

Oh come on. What is the alternative? Which countries are doing it differently?

I don't disagree that there should be a greater emphasis on skills training but more professionally oriented training from a younger age is the norm across every elite sport anywhere.

There seems to be some romantic notion that better outcomes will be achieved by getting rid of all these programs and starting with a blank slate when the kids turn 18.

If anything, we are currently paying the price for being late to the party with the elite development pathways for juniors which is being shown up by a consistent drop down the pecking order at junior world championships compared with our past results.

Anyway, this is a divergence from the ARU and Western Force debate.

My perception is the opposite,the more we focus on early Jnr programs, the worse we do at jnr world champs.
Maybe the current programs are answering the wrong questions?