Declining participation and ARU plans for the future

[Joe King]

I just think it's great there's a clear plan of attack from the ARU

 

[Rugrat]

This ARU development plan is flawed from the start IMO based on the direct quote that “Ultimately the future prosperity of the game is dependent on the success of our elite teams. We need successful Wallabies, Wallaroos, Super Rugby and Sevens teams. The professional game generates over 90% of the revenue for the code and provides the impetus to invest in other areas of the game,” said Pulver.
The mindset that the success of Rugby in this country is determined by the Wallabies is a flawed financial and developmental strategy. I challenge it by stating that the only other truly global contact sport "football/soccer" does not have that mindset.
Soccer in the UK is going pretty well on the basis of participation and money I think, yet the English team have only won the FIFA world cup once and that was in 1966. Rugby is growing globally in many markets around the world and this growth is not based on their respective national teams having won or even being a chance to win the World Cup. It is growing via participation and with that people who have played the game then want to watch the very best that their chosen sport has to offer. The very best is based around club competitions. The very best occasionally come together for FIFA world cup and the occasional friendly or test. The Socceroos have 20 games in 2015/16 season, on top of club commitments for players all over the world thus they chose from a wide squad on an international basis.
Do you think that Manchester United was successful as a club because the English football association ran it? Do you think they get involved in any of the teams? The ARU wants you to believe that a centralised model is the only chance of success and they base this on the success of the All Blacks! Well I would counter that Australia isn't NZ and we are a totally different market. Open your eyes Australian Rugby supporters. Centralisation means old boys club that is the very problem of Rugby in this country!

 

[kiap]

"Soccer in the UK" as a model is irrelevant to soccer in Australia, let alone rugby in Australia.

<ahem>

"we are a totally different market"

 

[barbarian]

It's not a fair comparison though Rugrat. Clubs have always been at the heart of football, and club comps occupy 95% of the calendar. People identify with their club first, and their country second.

The centre of rugby has always been international games. Rugby fans care far more about the Wallabies than they do their Super teams, likewise Kiwis/Saffers and the ABs/Boks.

Rugby will never shift to a football-style model where clubs are at the centre of the game, and internationals are something you only care about fpr a few weeks every two years (at Euro/Asian Cup time and World Cup time).

When the ARU come out and say the financial success of the game is heavily based on the Wallabies, it's not a vain hope for the future- it's how it has always been. Look at the financials- the vast majority of their annual funding comes from gate takings, sponsorship and TV revenue.

Clubs are vitally important to rugby, but to say they can somehow be the centre of our game financially is flawed.
.

 

[I like to watch]

Obviously revenue is dependent on the national & super teams being competitive.
But the future of the game is dependent on a healthy base.
If the 10 year olds arent continuing to play through the age groups, who's going to play in 15 years?
Who's going to watch in 25 years?
The fat kid in the School 3's is often more likely to be at all the big games in twenty years, with 3 kids in tow,wearing all their merchandise,than the top try scorer in the 1's.
If your horizon is 5 years then spend all your resources on the pro's.
If it's 20 years, spend most of it on the kids.

 

[Quick Hands]

When the ARU come out and say the financial success of the game is heavily based on the Wallabies, it's not a vain hope for the future- it's how it has always been. Look at the financials- the vast majority of their annual funding comes from gate takings, sponsorship and TV revenue.

Clubs are vitally important to rugby, but to say they can somehow be the centre of our game financially is flawed.
.

But has it "always been"?

Putting all our eggs in the Wallabies basket is surely as flawed as any other model which depends on one revenue stream?

Pulver is partially on the right track in that clubs and juniors are investments (his words not mine). The money that you spend on those areas should be recouped many times over when those kids become elite players, fans, coaches, parents sponsors etc.

Long term the objective should be that each level of the game is self-sufficient in terms of recurrent expenses with the ARU providing resources of DOs, structure and admin.

I can't see clubs ever being the financial centre of the game in Australia, but another goal could be to improve the financial position of the super sides.

Without wishing to criticise the concept of the NRC, it needs to start paying its way as well. As it currently exists it's not value for the money that it chews up in a sport that is short of money everywhere else.

Early in the piece various models were put forward which used existing clubs for the same purpose and vastly less cost.

 

[kiap]

Long term the objective should be that each level of the game is self-sufficient in terms of recurrent expenses with the ARU providing resources of DOs, structure and admin.

Interesting. So you are saying clubs and juniors should pay their own way.

In other words, increased fees for kids.

These groups have been subsidised (still are), and moves to reduce those subsidies have been met with howls and cries.

 

[Quick Hands]

Interesting. So you are saying clubs and juniors should pay their own way.

In other words, increased fees for kids.

These groups have been subsidised (still are), and moves to reduce those subsidies have been met with howls and cries.

Well, I've been involved in a junor club for a while and we've never received any money from either NSWRU or ARU. We raise and spend our own money - the only recent fee increases that we've had to make are as a result of the ARU participation fee and increased insurance because of the different way that the ARU decided to charge per person rather than per team. All junior clubs I know are the same. All subbies clubs that I know of are the same.

So who are these junior clubs who are receiving direct grants from either ARU or NSWRU?

How do we access some of these funds?

 

[RugbyReg]

Well, I've been involved in a junor club for a while and we've never received any money from either NSWRU or ARU. We raise and spend our own money - the only recent fee increases that we've had to make are as a result of the ARU participation fee and increased insurance because of the different way that the ARU decided to charge per person rather than per team. All junior clubs I know are the same. All subbies clubs that I know of are the same.

So who are these junior clubs who are receiving direct grants from either ARU or NSWRU?

How do we access some of these funds?

same as up here in Brisbane.

 

[kiap]

Well, I've been involved in a junor club for a while and we've never received any money from either NSWRU or ARU. We raise and spend our own money - the only recent fee increases that we've had to make are as a result of the ARU participation fee and increased insurance because of the different way that the ARU decided to charge per person rather than per team. All junior clubs I know are the same. All subbies clubs that I know of are the same.

So who are these junior clubs who are receiving direct grants from either ARU or NSWRU?

How do we access some of these funds?

It's okay, I believe you have not received direct grants to your club.

What I'm talking about is, for example, where the NSWRU funnelled $800k in 2014 (down from $860k the year before) into so-called "Community Rugby". There is some subsidy there.

If that were to continue to drop (and perhaps even drop to zero) then you would carry on with no concerns?

 

[Strewthcobber]

Community Rugby = paying the salary and expenses of Development officers

 

[kiap]

Of course.

And what they do could be done by club volunteers for free.

Or perhaps a whip-around and a few extra sausage sizzles.

I've just saved the game in NSW $800k (less my 15% commission).

 

[kiap]

Sorry, QH, was being a bit argumentative. :b

I sometimes use that method. But to cast in a more congenial light, community rugby should have an increase in funding flowing from the top, imo.

Instead of that amount going down 8% from the last year, put it up 8% this year. You mentioned DOs and admin, but there could be more scope than that. Perhaps even a fund, as others here have mentioned, where clubs can apply to get small grants for equipment and so on, to assist their rugby ...

Obviously rugby is limited in what it can do in comparison to AFL and RL, but some subsidy to the grassroots (over and above charges to participants) is needed from the levels above.

Otherwise, unless community clubs/players are squeezed for more, the status quo is effectively backwards anyway. Rugby will continue to be eroded by the other codes (and non-sport activities).

 

[Quick Hands]

Of course.

And what they do could be done by club volunteers for free.

Or perhaps a whip-around and a few extra sausage sizzles.

I've just saved the game in NSW $800k (less my 15% commission).

If you read the original post at #146, you'll see that I specifically said that the ARU should be providing these services, not volunteers selling sausages.

Long term the objective should be that each level of the game is self-sufficient in terms of recurrent expenses with the ARU providing resources of DOs, structure and admin.

 

[Quick Hands]

It's okay, I believe you have not received direct grants to your club.

What I'm talking about is, for example, where the NSWRU funnelled $800k in 2014 (down from $860k the year before) into so-called "Community Rugby". There is some subsidy there.

If that were to continue to drop (and perhaps even drop to zero) then you would carry on with no concerns?

Please reread post #146. Especially this bit

Long term the objective should be that each level of the game is self-sufficient in terms of recurrent expenses with the ARU providing resources of DOs, structure and admin.

 

[wamberal]

The revenue side of the equation needs some debate, too.


Where can we expect the money to come from?


Viewership across all the platforms will get more and more fragmented, apparently.


Maybe Whirled Rugby should be setting a long term objective of bundling all elite rugby into a global package, slicing the content up, and packaging it for all the geographical markets??

 

[kiap]

Long term the objective should be that each level of the game is self-sufficient in terms of recurrent expenses with the ARU providing resources of DOs, structure and admin.

I know and even quoted it the first time. Without coming over all semantic, it's the situation now.

But I don't think it's self-sufficient or self-sustaining.

As per the thread title, participation is declining. Unless the levels above are tapped - and not just for paying DOs imo - it will continue to shrink. In other words, grassroots needs to be subsidised by pro rugby, even moreso than present (there are limits, of course).

 

[Quick Hands]

I know and even quoted it the first time. Without coming over all semantic, it's the situation now.

But I don't think it's self-sufficient or self-sustaining.

As per the thread title, participation is declining. Unless the levels above are tapped - and not just for paying DOs imo - it will continue to shrink. In other words, grassroots needs to be subsidised by pro rugby, even moreso than present (there are limits, of course).

With the greatest respect, you seem to be having an argument with no one.

Every level of the game needs to be self-sufficient in terms of day to day running costs - I was really clear about that qualification. Club and junior rugby are. I also cleary said in post #146 that the ARU should be providing DOs, structure, admin etc from within their earnings. You call it subsidy, I call it investment. Far from cutting it, I think it should be increased - and I have said this many times across a number of threads.

As I said in post #146, there are levels of the game which aren't self-funding in terms of their runnings costs - super rugby and NRC. As I said, it should be a goal to have both these levels become self sufficient. This is for two main reasons - it's just good practice and if the ARU doesn't have to prop them up financially, then there's more money for the grass roots.

I realise that the game is declining - I even started a thread a couple of years back which is still going strong "Continued Decline in Sydney Juniors" and have regularly commented on the severe decline in the game in the state school system.

Super rugby is essential to the game in Australia and while I've always supported the concept of the NRC, I'm yet to be convinced that it's worth the money being spent in these times of financial crisis. It's in it's 3rd season - I'd be interested in seeing a cost/benefit analysis at the end of its third season.

 

[Quick Hands]

The revenue side of the equation needs some debate, too.


Where can we expect the money to come from?


Viewership across all the platforms will get more and more fragmented, apparently.


Maybe Whirled Rugby should be setting a long term objective of bundling all elite rugby into a global package, slicing the content up, and packaging it for all the geographical markets??

WR (World Rugby) aren't really interested in our problems - the game is going gangbusters just about everywhere else in the world. We've got to sort it out ourselves somehow.

 

[Strewthcobber]

NRC is effectively cost neutral for the ARU at the moment isn't it? I thought foxtel money covered the competition expenses and it was the teams that took the hit on player/coaching costs recoverable from crowds etc if they can.

The other level which is somewhere between club and pro and will require a chunk of money is age group and non-professional representative and development teams.