• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Australian Rugby / RA

mst

Peter Johnson (47)
I'm actually not following the question here?

I think each geographic area needs to be managed differently, i have an idea local to me. where as I'd love to see the impact if the Tahs trained out west 2 - 3 days a week, and included junior school activities in conjunction with that. Not sure what $ would be spent to train out west - but it would create good will.

You sort of answered my question.

I am wondering if the management / administration of the grass roots is better off being split away from the ARU main body to a grass root specific body?

Also if the additional levies that the ARU imposed to help raise funds; would this money actually be enough to fund a separate junior body that would serve the grass roots game better?

EG: NRL example - South's Juniors is massive and strong, but the NRL premiership side is separate and has struggled at times (bought and sold). So the elite cant drag down the Junior even though they are the same "club" so to speak.
 

WorkingClassRugger

David Codey (61)
Dave, unless the ARU devotes considerable funds to grassroots/development,this code will be consumed by the other codes.
Someone told me yesterday that Touch Footy has programs with over 250 Schools!

Yesterday I drove past Stella Maris(an all girls school)and a class was going across the rd for sport.
With a bag of 20 odd AFL footballs.
Leaving it up to volunteers to do their best in their spare time will just not cut it in today's world.
.

The AFL and Touch Footy things aren't new. I played competitive touch back in primary school. The AFL has been running programs for 20 odd years. But I do somewhat agree with you.

Volunteers do great work but they are limited by time and resources. Something I've always wondered is why we aren't utilising our resources more. By that I mean the players we have contracted professionally. The Super Rugby off season is a long one. Why aren't we using those not required for Test duty as Development officers? I'm serious here. Why don't we have it written into their contracts that as part of signing on they have to undertake ARU qualification in coaching and then are assigned to a number of schools to visit on a weekly/fortnightly basis depending on the time of year. We have what 150 odd contracted plays and only 30 so are required for Wallabies duties at any one time post Super Rugby season. That's 120 or so potential development officers that could be visiting schools and clubs. We need to get creative here.
 

Strewthcobber

Mark Ella (57)
Also if the additional levies that the ARU imposed to help raise funds; would this money actually be enough to fund a separate junior body that would serve the grass roots game better?

EG: NRL example - South's Juniors is massive and strong, but the NRL premiership side is separate and has struggled at times (bought and sold). So the elite cant drag down the Junior even though they are the same "club" so to speak.
If memory serves, the ARU will collect around $3m from the new levies this year - and the QRU around half that.

Both were millions less than what was allocated to "Community Rugby" in their respective Annual reports.
So on the face of it, if you trust the published numbers, without any extra revenue, the new body would have less money than what is currently spent.

And as a comparison, the AFL spend $50m a year on game development and new markets
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
So strewthcobber would you actually say they aren't raising funds at all, they're reducing the subsidy to community rugby?
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
Dave, unless the ARU devotes considerable funds to grassroots/development,this code will be consumed by the other codes.
Someone told me yesterday that Touch Footy has programs with over 250 Schools!

Yesterday I drove past Stella Maris(an all girls school)and a class was going across the rd for sport.
With a bag of 20 odd AFL footballs.
Leaving it up to volunteers to do their best in their spare time will just not cut it in today's world.

Queenwood School for Girls also has and AFL and programme fully supported by the AFL. IIRC their team won something recently.

If we look over in the SS thread there was an article posted which explained how well Penrith were going when there were paid DOs on the ground in their area working in schools etc. As soon as the NSWRU/ARU cut back on the DOs on 2002, down went Penrith.

I'm surprised that the concept that the governing body has a responsibility run develop the game by employing DOs is so controversial - it's pretty much a no-brainer IMO and any sport which doesn't do it will flounder everwhere but their heartland.
 

Strewthcobber

Mark Ella (57)
So strewthcobber would you actually say they aren't raising funds at all, they're reducing the subsidy to community rugby?
They are clearly raising funds, but it's so they can reduce the subsidy to community rugby.

I'm surprised that the concept that the governing body has a responsibility run develop the game by employing DOs is so controversial - it's pretty much a no-brainer IMO and any sport which doesn't do it will flounder everwhere but their heartland.
Our major problem is that every level of rugby costs more to run than it generates, except for the Wallabies.(and I mean in aggregate here, there will be clubs etc who can individually keep afloat)

The dollars flow downhill. That's fine, but it means the very lowest level is dependent on the very highest for funding, and there's an awful lot of people who want their cut of the pie before it cascades down to the base.

When the elite aren't going well, then the $$$ for the bottom dry up.
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
Sorry, meant to phrase it as, reduce what they subsidise.
 

mst

Peter Johnson (47)
They are clearly raising funds, but it's so they can reduce the subsidy to community rugby.


Our major problem is that every level of rugby costs more to run than it generates, except for the Wallabies.(and I mean in aggregate here, there will be clubs etc who can individually keep afloat)

The dollars flow downhill. That's fine, but it means the very lowest level is dependent on the very highest for funding, and there's an awful lot of people who want their cut of the pie before it cascades down to the base.

When the elite aren't going well, then the $$$ for the bottom dry up.

I am not convinced that the dollars flow down hill, and I think its a given that most amateur sports cost more than they generate as we are all aware of the need to fund-raise and the necessity of government (at all levels) assistance. That's a given.

There is significant evidence and merit in arguing that some sports with higher participation rates than rugby at a junior level are financially more stable than rugby without having a national side. So with out a "Wallabies" equivalent, how does basketball, tennis, softball, baseball, junior soccer and junior athletics all manage to survive and have higher participation rates than rugby?

Basketball is the best exponent to examine here. The NBL is a mess, and has struggled from one failure to another. But as its separate to the junior associations it doesn't drag down the grass roots. Matter of fact the junior associations support the national teams, but not the NBL.

So, without the equivalent Wallaby TV dollars, or even the Super Rugby dollars (so not elite$$), how does junior basketball maintain one of the highest participation rates at the grass roots level?

If memory serves, the ARU will collect around $3m from the new levies this year - and the QRU around half that.

This money alone would go a long way to operate an independent Junior ARU, that protects grass roots, and would mean the funding support from Governments for grass roots would not be diverted to support the elite.

Its a hypothetical argument, but worth considering. The next part of this thinking would lead to the question about where the super teams sit, and if the ARU is actually cashing in on the coattails of the super teams and clubs, operated independently of the ARU, but are the key to the SANZAR TV $$$.

Further, its arguable that the super teams are the ones administering the respective grass roots in some states / territories.

So if you draw the line in the sand at what's domestic, and what's international, you may find that the ARU are left with just the Wallabies, and a significantly lower cut of the TV $$$, with the domestic side of things, including grass roots ending up with more $$$ and more control.

Just a thought.
 
T

TOCC

Guest
Roy Masters wrote a bit of a nothing article on the SANZAR broadcast rights, he has rightly so been critical of the delay in announcement, obviously a convoluted affair given the number of countries and broadcasters involved, but SANZAR have given a few deadlines of when the deal would be announced by, all of which have come and gone..

One thing to note, and this has been revealed previously is that the grant to Super Rugby clubs will increase from $4.1million to $5.9million.. It had also been revealed previously that WA and Vic will receive a further $500k for academies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
I wonder if that's an increase in the cap. The cap has basically been the grant in the past.

And mst on your questions, how are the sports able to get good participation despite lack of strong domestic professional presence. I'd say the fact they are very strong international sports and have zero competition from similar codes like we do.
 
T

TOCC

Guest
The salary cap has been set at $5million until 2017 as part of the RUPA collective bargaining agreement, the ARU could still boost the salary cap before 2017 if they want.

Part of the increase in the grant will be to cover the loss of one less home game/season.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Omar Comin'

Chilla Wilson (44)
Not sure what thread to put this on, but I imagine the ARU must be a little concerned with the ticket sales for the match against the USA in Chicago. They were hoping for a $1 million windfall and somewhere close to the 60k the All Blacks got last year. But looking at the seating map on Ticketmaster it seems unlikely. http://www.ticketmaster.com/usa-rug...go-illinois-09-05-2015/event/04004EB4D1052F11)

One big section hasn't even gone on sale yet and the rest of the stadium has a majority of tickets still available. The Wallabies squad will be there for a couple of weeks before the game so that should help drum up some local interest, but it seems unlikely they'll get anything close to what the AB's did. 40,000 tickets to the All Blacks match had been sold 4 months before that game. The Wallabies/Eagles game is in a little over a month and it's sold nowhere near that many.
 

wamberal

Phil Kearns (64)
EG: NRL example - South's Juniors is massive and strong, but the NRL premiership side is separate and has struggled at times (bought and sold). So the elite cant drag down the Junior even though they are the same "club" so to speak.


Totally irrelevant. Souths Juniors is a huge business, they could probably buy and sell our code if they put their minds to it. The football part of it all is just incidental.


The Rabbitohs are now privately owned.


Yes, back in the dark old days they struggled, but when an attempt was made to kick them out of the comp their supporters (and a lot of other loig fans) rose up in droves and forced a change in that decision.


They are also thriving now. They are one of, if not the most, supported loig teams in the nation.

The only thing we could learn from them is that we, as a code, should have been more welcoming of indigenous players. But that would have required us to be professional (most indigenous kids and youth need to earn money) and it would have required us to have a game that they actually wanted to play.
 

WorkingClassRugger

David Codey (61)
Not sure what thread to put this on, but I imagine the ARU must be a little concerned with the ticket sales for the match against the USA in Chicago. They were hoping for a $1 million windfall and somewhere close to the 60k the All Blacks got last year. But looking at the seating map on Ticketmaster it seems unlikely. http://www.ticketmaster.com/usa-rug...go-illinois-09-05-2015/event/04004EB4D1052F11)

One big section hasn't even gone on sale yet and the rest of the stadium has a majority of tickets still available. The Wallabies squad will be there for a couple of weeks before the game so that should help drum up some local interest, but it seems unlikely they'll get anything close to what the AB's did. 40,000 tickets to the All Blacks match had been sold 4 months before that game. The Wallabies/Eagles game is in a little over a month and it's sold nowhere near that many.

They were never going to get anywhere near 60k like the ABs did. First of all, as much as we might wish it the Wallabies brand just isn't anywhere near that of the ABs particularly in the States. Add in the fact that the level of marketing has been nowhere near that of last year. There also happens to be a game in Philly I think the week after between the Eagles and Quins which is far more competitively priced.

They would have been better off looking to play in a smaller MLS stadium. Twenty thousand in a full stadium will look a lot better than the same in a 60k + stadium.
 

Omar Comin'

Chilla Wilson (44)
They were never going to get anywhere near 60k like the ABs did. First of all, as much as we might wish it the Wallabies brand just isn't anywhere near that of the ABs particularly in the States. Add in the fact that the level of marketing has been nowhere near that of last year. There also happens to be a game in Philly I think the week after between the Eagles and Quins which is far more competitively priced.

They would have been better off looking to play in a smaller MLS stadium. Twenty thousand in a full stadium will look a lot better than the same in a 60k + stadium.


Well the Wallabies might not have the brand that the All Blacks do, but they're certainly a much bigger drawcard than the Harlequins A team!

But the pricing does seem too steep. $200 for the best seats!

I think that All Blacks game was mostly filled with rugby people from all around the country flying in to attend. That's evidently not going to happen to anywhere near the same extent for the Wallabies, so they'll have to target the local Chicago sports fans on novelty value / national pride. I think 20k would be a poor crowd and would be a bit of a set back for American Rugby.
 

WorkingClassRugger

David Codey (61)
Well the Wallabies might not have the brand that the All Blacks do, but they're certainly a much bigger drawcard than the Harlequins A team!

But the pricing does seem too steep. $200 for the best seats!

I think that All Blacks game was mostly filled with rugby people from all around the country flying in to attend. That's evidently not going to happen to anywhere near the same extent for the Wallabies, so they'll have to target the local Chicago sports fans on novelty value / national pride. I think 20k would be a poor crowd and would be a bit of a set back for American Rugby.

And Rugby people will go to see this game. I'm sorry but the brand has a significant pull. If they were playing this game in Houston, San Jose, Denver or even Philly they'd sell it out. The only other team that may be able to draw a crowd anywhere near the ABs are the Boks.
 

Omar Comin'

Chilla Wilson (44)
And Rugby people will go to see this game. I'm sorry but the brand has a significant pull. If they were playing this game in Houston, San Jose, Denver or even Philly they'd sell it out. The only other team that may be able to draw a crowd anywhere near the ABs are the Boks.


That may well be the case, but if the Wallabies test is a commercial failure then it would discourage us and other top teams from touring there in the short-medium term. The All Blacks test last year was historic, every subsequent match (even by the All Blacks) won't be. In a way it's a better test of the market there for world class rugby.

I hope when the Wallabies arrive in Chicago that there's a good PR plan in place. We're still 2 time world champions, and with the world cup so close the Eagles will be a whole lot better prepared than they were against the All Blacks. It should definitely be a better game and it's a chance for American fans to send their team off in style. But I think a good crowd (lets say 40k+) would only be possible if they can get a decent amount of curious Chicago locals to give it a shot.
 
Top