ARU take over the Western Force.

[barbarian]

How different would things have been if the ARU had invested in the Force when it first began and gone all out to ensure it was a success.

I just don't get the furious blaming of the ARU for the Force's struggles.

In the early years, they DID pump funds into the Force, and coupled with Firepower and other sponsors the Force pulled in a whopping $22 million in revenue in their first two seasons.

They had a team chocked full of talent. I'm not sure what more the ARU could have done, bar completely strip the Waratahs, Reds and Brumbies of all their talented players just so the Force could chalk up a few more wins. Remember they weren't all killing it in 2006 either.

Blaming the ARU is too convenient. Ultimately the plight of Super Rugby teams rests with the administrations of each side- Rugby WA, QRU, NSWRU, etc. The ball is entirely in their court. Inevitably if they fail, it's somehow the fault of the ARU.

Did the ARU have a role in appointing Richard Graham, and then Michael Foley? Nope. Did they have a role in their clearly sub-standard rugby program? Nope. Did they negotiate the rent deals on NIB stadium that continue to milk the Force's funds? Nope.

And now the ARU actually taking a major step to help the Force (buying their IP and now absorbing some of their back office) and they are still copping blame. But it shouldn't have to come to this.

I understand that the Force have a case to receive a bit more cash from the ARU due to the distance from the East Coast and their struggles to attract players. But they DO get cash from the ARU. Of course it's never enough, but every team would say that.

I can't see how any Force fan can claim the ARU doesn't care about them, after witnessing the events of the past few weeks.
.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

I just don't get the furious blaming of the ARU for the Force's struggles.

In the early years, they DID pump funds into the Force, and coupled with Firepower and other sponsors the Force pulled in a whopping $22 million in revenue in their first two seasons.

They had a team chocked full of talent. I'm not sure what more the ARU could have done, bar completely strip the Waratahs, Reds and Brumbies of all their talented players just so the Force could chalk up a few more wins. Remember they weren't all killing it in 2006 either.

Blaming the ARU is too convenient. Ultimately the plight of Super Rugby teams rests with the administrations of each side- Rugby WA, QRU, NSWRU, etc. The ball is entirely in their court. Inevitably if they fail, it's somehow the fault of the ARU.

Did the ARU have a role in appointing Richard Graham, and then Michael Foley? Nope. Did they have a role in their clearly sub-standard rugby program? Nope. Did they negotiate the rent deals on NIB stadium that continue to milk the Force's funds? Nope.

And now the ARU actually taking a major step to help the Force (buying their IP and now absorbing some of their back office) and they are still copping blame. But it shouldn't have to come to this.

I understand that the Force have a case to receive a bit more cash from the ARU due to the distance from the East Coast and their struggles to attract players. But they DO get cash from the ARU. Of course it's never enough, but every team would say that.

I can't see how any Force fan can claim the ARU doesn't care about them, after witnessing the events of the past few weeks.
.

Something people who haven't spent anytime in the West seem not to realise is that the whole blaming of the ARU is just the continuation of the West Australian narrative. Sure, in the east we identify to our state and tend to throw barbs at others. NSW and QLD, Vic and NSW and so on. Ultimately, it's just a bit of fun. However, in WA they have this staunchly entrenched 'us vs them' mentality. Particularly aimed at all things Sydney.

I cannot tell you on how many occasions during my time in WA I had a local regale me of all the evils of the east coast most notably Sydney. The strangest thing is, more often than not when i would ask them if they have ever actually been to Sydney etc. the answer was, no.

The ARU is a Sydney based organisation ans therefore must be the root of all evil. I suspect this line of thinking comes from the isolation and need for self reliance that it has fostered. But still. A little reality never hurt anyone.

 

[Moono75]

I understand that the Force have a case to receive a bit more cash from the ARU due to the distance from the East Coast and their struggles to attract players. But they DO get cash from the ARU. Of course it's never enough, but every team would say that.
.

Investment doesn't just have to be in the monetary sense. I'm thinking also along the lines of fixturing to soften the travel blow, help with marketing to ensure the brand is out there, maybe even throwing us an AB's Test when we were at Subiaco just to solidify support for Rugby here in the West. Perhaps every Force win should be worth double points? Ultimately however a lot of mismanagement from our end and a lack of wins has killed a lot of the support. But I will point out the die hard support is as good if not better than many of the other Super teams.

I agree Super Rugby teams need to think outside the box to help themselves and shouldn't just come cap in hand asking for money....but this is the first time the Force has asked for any help financially.

With respect to the cash from the ARU. If all teams receive the same amount from the ARU then how is that helping the Force attract players to the West? The logic would be that the Force should receive more ARU funding for player payments in recognition of our special circumstances. This could be wound back once the club was on a path to on-field success.

Understand everything is tight so much of this discussion is pie in the sky stuff.

 

[kiap]

In the early years, they DID pump funds into the Force, and coupled with Firepower and other sponsors the Force pulled in a whopping $22 million in revenue in their first two seasons.

I think that emphasis is wrong, Baabaa. Not that I'm one who is blaming the ARU.

The whopping $22 million is right as reported. But did the ARU "pump" money into the Force?

I would say no.

The ARU wanted a fourth licence for Australia and negotiated a broadcast deal after it was secured, funding for which flowed from that deal. Teams don't fill TV timeslots for nothing.

Those monies from the ARU to the Force, that is, the various distributions for the S14 and lower levels of rugby, were of course significant. But the pump priming came from memberships (16k+ ... big then & would be now) and, erm, ... commercial activities. Much more signficant to the bottom line.

Peter O'Meara's story in this is a fascinating one; almost a Shakespearean drama :b. He had to find the required revenue for the Force and those numbers you've obtained were the result. A Queenslander and formerly part of the QRU, he was instrumental in stripping players away from the east, and the Reds in particular. His own connections also sowed the seeds for the Firepower deal that ultimately terminated his rugby admin career.

One thing about the Force at that time, though, is that their annual reports were made public and available online, as per those of the ARU and QRU. It took years before NSW followed suit. The Brumbies have never done so.

While it ended in ignominy for O'Meara and a clearly a few corners were cut, he didn't rip a huge chunk personally out of the game (unlike some others). He may be forgiveable.

O'Meara, along with the sea of blue, got the wheels rolling at the Force.

 

[barbarian]

O'Meara, along with the sea of blue, got the wheels rolling at the Force.

And the wheels were rolling, undoubtedly.

That's the problem with this whole issue. The Force were building so nicely in their first few years, and were ready to make a run in 2008-9. But it never happened.

Since then it's all been downhill. So the faults weren't so much in the creation of the team, but in that middle period where they should have been getting better (on and off the field) but did not.
.

 

[Gnostic]

Gnostic, what would be your alternative to the NRC for the long term pathway to Super/Test rugby? I personally think that if we are to maintain our competitiveness at international level, we can't just have the massive jump from Shute/Premier rugby to S18 like we've had. That to me is the unsustainable model.

That's the wrong question. Long term is something the ARU and none of the state unions have done in a long time. The NRC is a short term gamble, funded for two or three years and hope somebody will pick it up. Super Rugby likewise has been funded from deal to deal and their long term plan seems, just add more teams, no idea about quality and maintaining the standard of the competition. Neither is a long term plan really, though the Super Rugby system is at least an elite level competition, even watered down, and can be sold as such.

We are at a point financially where the only question that should be asked is what can we (Australian Rugby) sustain over the near and medium term. Will we be able to pay the bills this year, 2017 and 2018 let alone the lean year of the 2019 RWC.

Do I think the ARU has the money to fund 5 Super sides - No.
Do I think the ARU has the money to fund (even vicariously) the NRC - No.

Finally each time an expansion is tried and it fails to fire, or fails totally, good will (and time of opportunity) is burnt along with the cash. Even if a major benefactor comes along with masses of cash the damage can be done to the support base. It is what I have said about the Tahs for many years, and when Chieka came along and they actually started to play some watchable rugby again and even won the title has that resulted in a return of the fan base the side previously enjoyed?

 

[wamberal]

That sounds even gloomier than me at my lowest ebb.


Difficult to disagree, though. I believe the ARU is tryng its hardest.



I have said it before, ALL stakeholders have to forget their sectional self-interest and start pulling in a single direction.


Doesn't look all that likely from where I sit. So we have to hope for a deus ex machina. If Fitzy will allow one, that is.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

My question still stands, whether you think it's the right one or not. What is the right structure if the NRC isn't to be part of it?

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

That's the wrong question. Long term is something the ARU and none of the state unions have done in a long time. The NRC is a short term gamble, funded for two or three years and hope somebody will pick it up. Super Rugby likewise has been funded from deal to deal and their long term plan seems, just add more teams, no idea about quality and maintaining the standard of the competition. Neither is a long term plan really, though the Super Rugby system is at least an elite level competition, even watered down, and can be sold as such.

We are at a point financially where the only question that should be asked is what can we (Australian Rugby) sustain over the near and medium term. Will we be able to pay the bills this year, 2017 and 2018 let alone the lean year of the 2019 RWC.

Do I think the ARU has the money to fund 5 Super sides - No.
Do I think the ARU has the money to fund (even vicariously) the NRC - No.

Finally each time an expansion is tried and it fails to fire, or fails totally, good will (and time of opportunity) is burnt along with the cash. Even if a major benefactor comes along with masses of cash the damage can be done to the support base. It is what I have said about the Tahs for many years, and when Chieka came along and they actually started to play some watchable rugby again and even won the title has that resulted in a return of the fan base the side previously enjoyed?

The NRC had been secured for the next 5 years and you'd have to imagine will feature in future bundles as well.

 

[Gnostic]

The NRC had been secured for the next 5 years and you'd have to imagine will feature in future bundles as well.

The future of the NRC hasn't been assured. The actual wording is a third tier competition will be supported, but the structure is not fixed. I will try and find the direct quote.

In the mean time here is another example of the ARU burning goodwill (and cash) at the sub-pro level.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...n/news-story/b84ac5034df985ee76321703fa3bab21


So the Stars will not exist this year, and as Warren Livingstone diplomatically says he is "disappointed that the club will no longer exist" he pointedly asks if anybody wants $20K of merchandise which is in his garage.

Lets add that waste of cash to the waste nationally after the collapse of the ARC and the goodwill burnt then.

Now also read between the lines, Souths supporting the now "rebranded North Harbour Rays (more merchandise up the river), Easts, Eastwood and Randwick still opting out altogether though their players can play if they want.

Yes this is sustainable......

Edit:- I found the link
http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...0/news-story/a79a11a04794778ed21f0193177b6844

It is not known if the ARU will still get $2m-a-year for the NRC, however, and it understood Fox Sports have committed to broadcast an Australian third-tier competition — not necessarily the NRC in its current format.

 

[Gnostic]

My question still stands, whether you think it's the right one or not. What is the right structure if the NRC isn't to be part of it?

Its the wrong question simply because IMO it is not financially viable and it runs at a very high risk of burning more good will and opportunity. To me the risk is simply not worth the supposed reward.

Qld 1 or 2 will win again this year or maybe the Vikings will take it out. They are simply watered down Super sides. The NSW sides are a half baked amalgam of clubs with no real rhyme or reason because nobody really wants to buy in (even the Tahs) but they obviously can't be left out.

No matter what other plan anybody puts up in competition to the NRC it doesn't matter simply because the ARU has hung its hat on this peg and will ensure the band keeps playing as the ship takes water.

My views have been posted before about a national club competition and they really don't matter. FWIW now the reason I said its the wrong question is because the game ATM cannot afford another failure.

 

[kiap]

Edit:- I found the link
http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...0/news-story/a79a11a04794778ed21f0193177b6844

Date: March 5, 2015 ... C'mon mate. More than a year old and about as relevant as your misinformation on the workforce in WA.

That's a yellow card.

This thread is about the ARU administering the Western Force.

No more waffle about NRC and whether Easts, Eastwood and Randwick are involved. Click on the NRC forum.

 

[Gnostic]

Kiap I was answering a question and like it or not its relevant to the financial state of the ARU and therefore the administration of the Western Force, which is how we got here, have a look. Don't like it don't read, or petition a mod to move it to the thread you think it fits, but to keep the context everyone else's posts will have to be moved as well. It is after all a discussion board.

As for "mis-information" considering my information comes first hand I'll accept it truth.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Its the wrong question simply because IMO it is not financially viable and it runs at a very high risk of burning more good will and opportunity. To me the risk is simply not worth the supposed reward.

Qld 1 or 2 will win again this year or maybe the Vikings will take it out. They are simply watered down Super sides. The NSW sides are a half baked amalgam of clubs with no real rhyme or reason because nobody really wants to buy in (even the Tahs) but they obviously can't be left out.

No matter what other plan anybody puts up in competition to the NRC it doesn't matter simply because the ARU has hung its hat on this peg and will ensure the band keeps playing as the ship takes water.

My views have been posted before about a national club competition and they really don't matter. FWIW now the reason I said its the wrong question is because the game ATM cannot afford another failure.

So what is your solution? What is the right structure for rugby in Australia? I'm genuinely curious.

 

[kiap]

I'm sure you'll concede that the $285m media deal which included the NRC for 2016-20 ...

“... ensures the long-term future of the Buildcorp National Rugby Championship (NRC), with FOX SPORTS to remain a key partner and exclusive broadcaster of the competition for the next five years.​

”​

17 December 2015​

And corrects the outdated reporting you were relying on.

So let's hear no more about Easts, Eastwood and Randwick not being in NRC. OK?

 

[Gnostic]

NFI - honestly. But in saying that there are people I have got to know through rugby who are far better business people than I am (though I am immodest enough to say I am yet to go hungry) who have been saying for years the outcomes we are seeing now were coming and gave the reasons for those predictions as far back as 2010 and earlier.

We have to deal with the realities, the broadcast deal locks the ARU into 5 teams. Whilst I and others do not think that is sustainable we have to accept that is the requirement, so we have to find the locations that will produce the most stable support for those sides and minimise the costs, since I think it is a given that the ARU will be supporting at least three of the sides financially and possibly all of them. So do we keep the Force in WA and move the Rebels or vice versa? I don't know and that's why an independent commission would be best placed to judge, there are simply too many vested interests in the current system with too many conflicted priorities.

As we are seeing with the Reds fiasco and the Brumbies intrigues and historically the same rubbish at the Tahs and the Firepower issues at the Force I think it is safe to say we need a big clean out of the whole management from the ARU down. I would like to see an independent commission type governance brought in first and then examine the future location of each side bar Tahs and Reds who remain the basis of the game in Australia.

Then we can consider the next level of the game and I think it has to have true buy in from the traditional clubs.

We forum tragics are a small portion of the fan-dom and the local club blokes I talk to on the Mid North Coast to a large don't watch Super Rugby and even less watch or have any following in NRC. If we cannot engage with those who play the game we have F-all chance of bringing non-rugby people into the fold and that ultimately will determine if we can sustain the Super sides no matter what the structure is and where they are placed.

 

[Gnostic]

I'm sure you'll concede that the $285m media deal which included the NRC for 2016-20 ...

“... ensures the long-term future of the Buildcorp National Rugby Championship (NRC), with FOX SPORTS to remain a key partner and exclusive broadcaster of the competition for the next five years.​

”​

17 December 2015​

http://www.rugby.com.au/News/NewsArticle/tabid/1699/ArticleID/17196/Australian-Rugby-announces-new-media-rights-arrangements-for-2016-2020.aspx​

​

And corrects the outdated reporting you were relying on.



So let's hear no more about Easts, Eastwood and Randwick. OK?

​

​

​

Look at the other link as well. It is from 11/02/16. and speaks about the discontinuance of the Stars, and those clubs mentioned.

The earlier report was not corrected in the quote I posted from the PR media release of the ARU.

So lets read the posts and links.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

The contract locks us into five teams, that's correct and a given. I'd be focused on what helps us as a rugby nation sustain those franchises and builds the sport in each location. At the very least the game is growing here in the West. There have never been as many players as there are now and it keeps growing. That's a good thing. I think the ARU will have to step in on the management front at the Force and maybe RugbyWA as well. Clearly something needs to change there.

As part of the management shake up we have to get a new head coach at the franchise. That's also not working. We don't have the best playing group in the comp, but neither do we have the worst. We just have to focus on getting the best out of what we have for now and get some wins. That will bring people and money to the game. The corporate situation in Perth obviously doesn't help either, but my sense is that we're at or near the bottom of that particular issue (famous last words). There are enough good rugby people in WA with enough money to keep things going, so long as our governance structures are right and we have the best people in charge.

 

[ChargerWA]

Something people who haven't spent anytime in the West seem not to realise is that the whole blaming of the ARU is just the continuation of the West Australian narrative. Sure, in the east we identify to our state and tend to throw barbs at others. NSW and QLD, Vic and NSW and so on. Ultimately, it's just a bit of fun. However, in WA they have this staunchly entrenched 'us vs them' mentality. Particularly aimed at all things Sydney.

I cannot tell you on how many occasions during my time in WA I had a local regale me of all the evils of the east coast most notably Sydney. The strangest thing is, more often than not when i would ask them if they have ever actually been to Sydney etc. the answer was, no.

The ARU is a Sydney based organisation ans therefore must be the root of all evil. I suspect this line of thinking comes from the isolation and need for self reliance that it has fostered. But still. A little reality never hurt anyone.

What a truckload of xenophobic rubbish.

 

[WorkingClassRugger]

What a truckload of xenophobic rubbish.

I think you need to look up xenophobia. Last time I checked WA was still part of Australia. Additionally, I spent three years in the state. Managed to get around a bit and yes, these conversations happened.