Australian Rugby / RA

[chiraag]

Cutting a team is only a very short term fix (until 2020), at a very big cost of essentially destroying rugby in a large area of Australia, and therefore sacrificing future revenue from that area.

After the current broadcast deal, the subsequent one will no doubt be much lower value for the ARU due to the drop in interest in super rugby, steadily dwelling viewer numbers and more importantly the lower proportion of Australian content as we've removed one team. From what I can tell, no teams besides the force are doing much on their end to become more financially viable than taking bigger handouts from the ARU, so the situation after 2020 seems very predictable....

 

[daz]

Of course individual franchises and unions (that aren't on the chopping block) will prefer to have 4 teams when it means more money and resources for them. All that tells you is that it's in their best interest. Whether that's worth all but killing the sport in another state is not their concern.

The Rebels only want 4 teams as well, I assure you. Just as long as they are one of them.

If another team folds, for the sake of the argument let's say the Waratah's , it means that a team full of solid Super Rugby and Wallaby players suddenly come onto the market for the other 4 teams to divide up and bolster their respective teams.

That means we have 4 Oz teams that have a lot more depth. That doesn't equate to competitiveness though; coaching capability is another question for another time.

It also means we can skim the best of the ARC/SS/etc, rather than pluck out players that just aren't ready (or capable) of Super Rugby, just because we need to fill our team roster/injury cover.

I'm sure there are other minor details around money/tv/central control/whatever, but I could give two fucks about that.

The player reallocation bit makes sense. Sadly, one province is going to be sacrificed to make this happen.

 

[Killer]

The ARU are over leveraged, a team cut makes sense in a cold way. There's also a player distribution argument (that is more grey than black/white). People/uniors aren't insane for voting for the cut, in fact it makes sense.

However, the ARU built these teams against advice they asked for from prestigious consultancy companies. Now people are attached to the teams and it's perfectly understandable they don't want them to go (myself included).

The ARU made an emotional decision over a business one, now they're forced to make a business decision. It's a bad look for them.

From a business perspective you don't want to compound a bad decision. The way forward imo is the grassroots therefore cutting a team under the current circumstances seems very counter productive.
As I said above why not cut all payments by 10-25% rather than cut a team and destroy potentially a big part of your future.

This idea is not unheard of in business, during the 09 mkt crash Euroz Securities here in Perth cut all employees remuneration by 10% to avoid redundancies at the worst possible time. This was not popular with those that would not have lost their jobs(maybe NSW, QLD etc) but imo the overall result was very positive for the company longer term.

Vision is needed now, with a long term bias

 

[Braveheart81]

As I said above why not cut all payments by 10-25% rather than cut a team and destroy potentially a big part of your future.

They don't have that option. Under the CBA the players are entitled to a certain percentage of revenue.

 

[Killer]

They don't have that option. Under the CBA the players are entitled to a certain percentage of revenue.

there always solutions to problems, especially at times like these

 

[BLR]

I think RWA should have joined the vote with VRU and RUPA to keep five teams - it is ludicrous for them to have voted for four - if the vote is a secret, then I think in good conscience, the RWA president should clear the air and reveal his vote.

Why shouldn't the VRU & RUPA do it?

The way I see it they went into this the clarify this so called 'process' and then didn't even bring it to the table. So they failed so I would put it that they are the ones who voted to cut a team.

Being, looking at the timing of calling an EGM this seems to be a stunt designed to take heat off Victoria in the short term as they never actually tabled what they said they would, instead putting up a resolution which was clearly going to be defeated.

Useless.

 

[amirite]

From a business perspective you don't want to compound a bad decision. The way forward imo is the grassroots therefore cutting a team under the current circumstances seems very counter productive.
As I said above why not cut all payments by 10-25% rather than cut a team and destroy potentially a big part of your future.

This idea is not unheard of in business, during the 09 mkt crash Euroz Securities here in Perth cut all employees remuneration by 10% to avoid redundancies at the worst possible time. This was not popular with those that would not have lost their jobs(maybe NSW, QLD etc) but imo the overall result was very positive for the company longer term.

Vision is needed now, with a long term bias

As Braveheart said, there's the CBA to worry about, but in a vacuum you've got a point.

The other thing to consider is, Australian rugby is not a marketplace in itself, rugby is a global marketplace. Reducing player payments per team would make Australia a far less attractive place to play, even if you reduced the overall size of the playing roster slightly as well.

That being said, not the worst idea (though staff/player payments is not the only cost of running a team).

 

[amirite]

I think RWA should have joined the vote with VRU and RUPA to keep five teams - it is ludicrous for them to have voted for four - if the vote is a secret, then I think in good conscience, the RWA president should clear the air and reveal his vote.

Perhaps I've misunderstood, but it is rumoured RWA voted for 4 teams and Vic Rugby and RUPA voted for 5?

What did the Rebels (as a separate entity to the VRU) vote for?

 

[Killer]

As Braveheart said, there's the CBA to worry about, but in a vacuum you've got a point.

The other thing to consider is, Australian rugby is not a marketplace in itself, rugby is a global marketplace. Reducing player payments per team would make Australia a far less attractive place to play, even if you reduced the overall size of the playing roster slightly as well.

That being said, not the worst idea (though staff/player payments is not the only cost of running a team).

yes agree, I meant a whole competition haircut where possible.
IOT get back to living within our means while driving grassroots growth.
If it results in some players leaving for EUR, so be it, our game simply can't afford the high payments at the moment.
I don't think it would be so hard. Accepting your situation, cutting costs and getting back to basics is very cathartic when it is potentially the start of something better.

 

[daz]

so I would put it that they are the ones who voted to cut a team.

.

Are you paying attention? The Rebels did vote to cut a team, just as long as it isn't them.

They want a 4 team model just like the majority of the other provinces. Simple as that.

 

[daz]

Perhaps I've misunderstood, but it is rumoured RWA voted for 4 teams and Vic Rugby and RUPA voted for 5?

What did the Rebels (as a separate entity to the VRU) vote for?

4 TEAMS!

 

[Strewthcobber]

The question would become - can the Super Rugby teams cut ~$1m from their budgets and remain/become competitive?

And do they have the ability to find $$$ from other sources eg sponsorship/memberships/tickets/ownership models

If not doesn't that just force the Super teams, and pretty quickly the ARU, into insolvency (which I think happens anyway)

 

[Killer]

The question would become - can the Super Rugby teams cut ~$1m from their budgets and remain/become competitive?

And do they have the ability to find $$$ from other sources eg sponsorship/memberships/tickets/ownership models

If not doesn't that just force the Super teams, and pretty quickly the ARU, into insolvency (which I think happens anyway)

What was Einsteins definition of insanity?

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

 

[amirite]

yes agree, I meant a whole competition haircut where possible.
IOT get back to living within our means while driving grassroots growth.
If it results in some players leaving for EUR, so be it, our game simply can't afford the high payments at the moment.
I don't think it would be so hard. Accepting your situation, cutting costs and getting back to basics is very cathartic when it is potentially the start of something better.

You make some good points, but have you heard of the rule of unintended consequences?

I think we'd see a lot more top level talent following in the footsteps of either Paul Alo-Emile (leave Australia, play international rugby elsewhere) and Angus Crichton (opt for league).

This would tank our international performances (or at least we'd stay in our current slump), which we all know is not making our game attractive to casual fans.

 

[amirite]

What was Einsteins definition of insanity?

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

Yes, but if all current teams cut 1 million from their budgets it's 'Einstein's definition of insanity' but with less cash to back it up.

Insanity Lite, if you will.

 

[Killer]

You make some good points, but have you heard of the rule of unintended consequences?

I think we'd see a lot more top level talent following in the footsteps of either Paul Alo-Emile (leave Australia, play international rugby elsewhere) and Angus Crichton (opt for league).

This would tank our international performances (or at least we'd stay in our current slump), which we all know is not making our game attractive to casual fans.

yes, but imo with a future.
This current path we are on seems to only have one conclusion.

I think we have the depth at International level just lacking in Coaching and good on field leaders.
Remember how long it took for Coleman to get a bench spot and that was only because of injuries!

 

[amirite]

yes, but imo with a future.
This current path we are on seems to only have one conclusion.

I don't think the model is broken, as much as our performance is. For this model to work we probably 3/5 teams performing well at a time (and thus getting good crowds).

IDK what the answer to the performance piece is, but I think it involves getting lucky with a couple of coaching appointments and 20-30 young players blossoming into form simultaneously.

It could happen.

 

[Killer]

I don't think the model is broken, as much as our performance is. For this model to work we probably 3/5 teams performing well at a time (and thus getting good crowds).

IDK what the answer to the performance piece is, but I think it involves getting lucky with a couple of coaching appointments and 20-30 young players blossoming into form simultaneously.

It could happen.

Yes agree medium term.
But we need to follow the AFL/ARL model of building on current strong Competitions in Syd and Bris.
There are too many disaffected supporters and we need the tribalism that comes with them for longer term success. Reference an earlier post of mine today.

I know these views are a bit long term and difficult to implement but as Gnostic, Half, Reds happy and others have said, this is the time to act.

 

[amirite]

Yes agree medium term.
But we need to follow the AFL/ARL model of building on current strong Competitions in Syd and Bris.
There are too many disaffected supporters and we need the tribalism that comes with them for longer term success. Reference an earlier post of mine today.

The most successful NRL sides aren't built out of strong local club with tribalism, they were original entities (Broncos and Storm).

Also, the SS clubs don't have the fanbase that VFL (or even NSWRL) clubs had when they were used as the building blocks of a professional national league.

If rugby goes looking for solutions in what others have done they won't find them, we've got unique issues.

 

[Killer]

The most successful NRL sides aren't built out of strong local club with tribalism, they were original entities (Broncos and Storm).

Also, the SS clubs don't have the fanbase then VFL clubs had when they were used as the building blocks of a professional national league.

If rugby goes looking for solutions in what others have done they won't find them, we've got unique issues.

I don't agree, the Broncos always had that us and them thing from the beginning. Just like when The Eagles joined the VFL/AFL, a whole States worth of tribalism.
The Tahs and Reds had it too in the beginning V NZ and SA but it has stagnated to the point where the haters are starting to outnumber the supporters.
Rugby has not evolved in Aust

Sorry missed the SS bit, yeah maybe there would be some hurdles but its the best base we have. Maybe sponsorship would be better in Syd.
In the VFL all some of those clubs had for revenue was crowds, hand to mouth those days. I remember when Dulux was sponsoring Footscray (prob AFL, can't remember) a friend of mine told me they paid ONLY $10k for the jumper naming rights.
AFL then and now are very different beasts.