Rebels 2017

[James Pettifer]

A state government funding a professional club team in Australia is unprecendted, it hasn't happened in recent history.. Governments fund big events like Grand Prix, Australian Open, Bledilose because of the tourism factor and international exposure. Rebels do not fit in this category..

In the past 20 years the only funding towards pro club teams has either been through community programs associated with the team, or funding for capital projects. There hasn't been a case of funding ongoing budget liabilities, which is the greatest risk with the Rebels..

Typically funding occurs through sponsorship

• The WA government fund the Western Force through road safety
• The Vic government funds or funded Richmond, Essendon, Collingwood, Geelong and Melbourne Victory through TAC
• The Vic government funds or funded Western Bulldogs and the Melbourne Victory through Worksafe
• The NSW government funds the NRL and the NSW cricket team through Transport for NSW
• The Tasmanian government just went #^$@ that and directly "sponsors" Hawthorn so that they play games in Tasmania

My hypothesis is that the Vic government did not want to provide any funding to the club whilst it was under Imperium's ownership but are much more comfortable in funding (in whatever form) it under the VRU.
They are also likely to be considering the impact on future larger rugby matches in Victoria (Bledisloe Cup and Lions tours) for instance.

 

[James Pettifer]

Well BR, I think Cam Clyne was a little backward looking when he stated - last week at Harlequin Club , that the Brumbies were saved from the cull because they had won a premiership. No reference was made to the size of the market for the product in Canberra - do you have any figures to illustrate the size of the market in Canberra, btw?

Let's be honest. The Brumbies are and always have been on the potential chopping block.

There are 4 options (well 5 if you consider leaving super rugby immediately, breaking the broadcast agreement and probably sending the ARU and the franchises into bankruptcy)

• Keep all 5 teams - apparently not viable as has been agreed with SAANZAR
• Drop the Force - pending arbitration decision (which I think will come down in favor of retaining the Force)
• Drop the Rebels - except they have no legal way of doing it
• Drop one of the Waratahs, Reds and Brumbies

 

[mst]

Well BR, I think Cam Clyne was a little backward looking when he stated - last week at Harlequin Club , that the Brumbies were saved from the cull because they had won a premiership. No reference was made to the size of the market for the product in Canberra - do you have any figures to illustrate the size of the market in Canberra, btw?

The size of Canberra market is only holds limited relevancy in the context of this discussion. Per capita the Brumbies have the highest proportionate base of members / supporters and crowds In as far as rating they punch above their weight being close to the Tahs and Reds. There "brand"reputation is arguable higher that any other franchise O/S.

One common failing in the GAGR and in TV land that has become blatantly obvious recently is our measure like rating etc are irrelevant. The collapse of Channel 10 was the perfect example. When they changed management in the recent past they changed from a lower rating based to content to chase rating thinking it was the best way to compete against the other networks. What they didn't realise was that their low ratings base had the highest advertising revenue going around. So he content change and ratings chasing obsession effectively was their undoing.

But in your question lays the key issue with the way we look at the Super Rugby. Super Rugby is not a domestic product but we have trying to manipulate it to be that and neglected the O/S market.

Examine the recent statements around the Rebel and the transfer of ownership and tell me which one of these markets is being targeted?

As an example were you aware that all the Fiji Airline captains wore red and black epaulette over the last few days as they sponsor the Cruasders?

​

 

[Slim 293]

Well BR, I think Cam Clyne was a little backward looking when he stated - last week at Harlequin Club , that the Brumbies were saved from the cull because they had won a premiership. No reference was made to the size of the market for the product in Canberra - do you have any figures to illustrate the size of the market in Canberra, btw?

The on field success carries a lot of weight though, especially when you're historically and presently the best performing team of the group.

 

[TOCC]

Typically funding occurs through sponsorship

• The WA government fund the Western Force through road safety
• The Vic government funds or funded Richmond, Essendon, Collingwood, Geelong and Melbourne Victory through TAC
• The Vic government funds or funded Western Bulldogs and the Melbourne Victory through Worksafe
• The NSW government funds the NRL and the NSW cricket team through Transport for NSW
• The Tasmanian government just went #^$@ that and directly "sponsors" Hawthorn so that they play games in Tasmania

My hypothesis is that the Vic government did not want to provide any funding to the club whilst it was under Imperium's ownership but are much more comfortable in funding (in whatever form) it under the VRU.
They are also likely to be considering the impact on future larger rugby matches in Victoria (Bledisloe Cup and Lions tours) for instance.

Yep sponsorship may be what they are intending, Problem here is when the political landscape shifts, in WA the opposition were highly critical of the Road Safety sponsorship and have even sort to have it cancelled since taking office. It's all but been announced that it won't continue past the current term if it makes it that far..

QLD Govt once sponsored the Reds through QR, in what was considered a sweetener for the Reds to move from Ballymore to Suncorp, but the landscape changed and once that sponsorship expired it wasn't renewed in any form.

Funding in the form of sponsorship presents long term liability issues, a shift in the political landscape can change revenue streams form one year to the next. A short term sponsorship doesn't ensure the long term viability of the Rebels, and that's what is most concerning to Australian Rugby.

VRU can't cover any deficits themselves, and if the state government doesn't guarantee any other financial support then it's going to be up to the ARU to cover any losses... which is no different to what happened in Melbourne 4 years ago.

 

[Slim 293]

View attachment 9593

The size of Canberra market is only holds limited relevancy in the context of this discussion. Per capita the Brumbies have the highest proportionate base of members / supporters and crowds In as far as rating they punch above their weight being close to the Tahs and Reds. There "brand"reputation is arguable higher that any other franchise O/S.

​

There was a mention in the Crimes this year that the Brumbies international ratings were the highest or second highest of the Australian teams.

 

[mst]

There was a mention in the Crimes this year that the Brumbies international ratings were the highest/second highest of the Australian teams.

Yep, i believe you are correct. Now think how many of the Aussie Super Rugby teams sponsors are international or are looking to advertise globally.

 

[TOCC]

There was a mention in the Crimes this year that the Brumbies international ratings were the highest or second highest of the Australian teams.

Source?

 

[Slim 293]

Source?

This vague nugget from April..........

The Brumbies are second most watched Australian team on Fox Spots, only behind the NSW Waratahs, averaging 16,000 more viewers than the Rebels and the Force. The Brumbies also lead the overseas broadcast statistics.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/rug...kill-rugby-in-two-cities-20170425-gvrt0k.html

 

[TOCC]

Ratings for individual teams tend to ebb and flow with the relative ladder position of the team. Reds were Australias leading team for ratings during McKenzied reign. Now they've fallen off the cliff, there may be a lesson to take away there.

 

[lou75]

Let's be honest. The Brumbies are and always have been on the potential chopping block.

There are 4 options (well 5 if you consider leaving super rugby immediately, breaking the broadcast agreement and probably sending the ARU and the franchises into bankruptcy)

• Keep all 5 teams - apparently not viable as has been agreed with SAANZAR
• Drop the Force - pending arbitration decision (which I think will come down in favor of retaining the Force)
• Drop the Rebels - except they have no legal way of doing it
• Drop one of the Waratahs, Reds and Brumbies

I dont agree those are the only options. For one, the $14 million spend in corporate head quarters could surely be reduced, in line with the NZRU corporate spend of NZD 10 million (AUD equivalent 9.34 m).

 

[daz]

It's done.


https://melbournerebels.com/2017/08/06/vru-statement/

 

[GoMelbRebels]

Formal statement from Melbourne Rebels:
https://melbournerebels.com/2017/08/06/rebels-future-secured-with-ownership-takeover/

And from VRU:
https://melbournerebels.com/2017/08/06/vru-statement/

 

[lou75]

Further, in the ARU annual accounts, in the notes to the accounts it says:
"Super Rugby expenditure increased by $13 m comprising:
Super Rugby team costs of $8.1 m, an increase of $4.8 million being share of increased costs (predominantly travel costs) resulting from the expanded Super Rugby competition."
Now I'm no expert on travel costs, but $4.8 m divided by 5 teams is about $960,000 extra each franchise - and for the Rebels, we had an extra overseas trip to play the Sunwolves. Can anyone tell me how that trip cost an extra $960,000? Or how the five of our teams could each have cost that much more - because, here's another circa $5 m we could use and not lose a team.

 

[BLR]

So the VRU/Rebels are saying the ARU was informed of the process throughout but the ARU said that they were not told....

 

[GoMelbRebels]

So the VRU/Rebels are saying the ARU was informed of the process throughout but the ARU said that they were not told..

I get that at work all the time; "it's the first I've heard of it!". "No, you just weren't paying attention until now".

 

[Brumby Runner]

Well BR, I think Cam Clyne was a little backward looking when he stated - last week at Harlequin Club , that the Brumbies were saved from the cull because they had won a premiership. No reference was made to the size of the market for the product in Canberra - do you have any figures to illustrate the size of the market in Canberra, btw?

I seem to remember some references lately also to the fact they have figured in the finals series five years in a row. All of their success has not been in the past, and they consistently outperform the other Aus franchises. Rugby in Canberra would be of interest to a significantly higher proportion of the population than it is in Melbourne, even to the point that in absolute terms I expect there would be more fans in Canberra, where it retains its status as one of the top winter sports, than in Melbourne where it is a very minor niche sport.

 

[lou75]

I seem to remember some references lately also to the fact they have figured in the finals series five years in a row. All of their success has not been in the past, and they consistently outperform the other Aus franchises. Rugby in Canberra would be of interest to a significantly higher proportion of the population than it is in Melbourne, even to the point that in absolute terms I expect there would be more fans in Canberra, where it retains its status as one of the top winter sports, than in Melbourne where it is a very minor niche sport.

anecdotal

 

[daz]

I get that at work all the time; "it's the first I've heard of it!". "No, you just weren't paying attention until now".

The ARU would be brave to call a QC (Quade Cooper) a liar.

It was probably in italic 2 sized font at the bottom of the weekly "have a good weekend" email from Rebels HQ to the ARU.

Still counts as being told; not our fault they didn't read it.

 

[James Pettifer]

I dont agree those are the only options. For one, the $14 million spend in corporate head quarters could surely be reduced, in line with the NZRU corporate spend of NZD 10 million (AUD equivalent 9.34 m).

That would probably fall under option 1 - keep 5 teams. I suspect SANZAAR will not be particularly happy.