• 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.

The Pulverisation of Australian Rugby

Status
Not open for further replies.

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
If the market demands the clubs, the market will get the clubs. The problem is that the clubs haven't managed to expand their revenue base (membership/sponsorship/grog sales/whatever). Either that's due to mismanagement across the clubs, or people just aren't interested in club rugby outside the hardcore supporters.

The clubs need to be able to run themselves. If that means they're run as fundamentally amateur operations, then so be it.

So your model is profit and loss statements determine whether a rugby organisation should exist?

In that case - ARU goooone, NSWRU gooone.

If only the ARU was mismanaged as well as the clubs.

You see in addition for providing a place for people to play, these clubs also provide a reason for rugby to appear in the press. For 2 weeks a year rugby pushes league off the back page of the Manly Daily in the lead up to the Manly V Warringah game. In 20 other weeks there would be a rugby story 4 days out of 5 to do with one or both of the clubs - what value do you put on this? Should Manly and Warringah invoice the ARU for the free coverage?

Your idea that rugby is the ARU and that anyone below that needs to turn a profit to justify their existance is just plain wrong.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
art-joyce61-420x0.jpg


4458212-3x2-940x627.jpg





We're going through some tough times at the moment, but they're not our fault. The board and the CEO are doing all doing a fantastic job. We've got some great plans which will usher in a new golden age (I know we've said that before, but this time it's true)
 

Lorenzo

Arch Winning (36)
So your model is profit and loss statements determine whether a rugby organisation should exist?

In that case - ARU goooone, NSWRU gooone.

If only the ARU was mismanaged as well as the clubs.

You see in addition for providing a place for people to play, these clubs also provide a reason for rugby to appear in the press. For 2 weeks a year rugby pushes league off the back page of the Manly Daily in the lead up to the Manly V Warringah game. In 20 other weeks there would be a rugby story 4 days out of 5 to do with one or both of the clubs - what value do you put on this? Should Manly and Warringah invoice the ARU for the free coverage?

Your idea that rugby is the ARU and that anyone below that needs to turn a profit to justify their existance is just plain wrong.


The Manly Daily? Seriously? That's the most positive externality that you could come up with? To answer your (rhetorical, I know), the value I put on that is about 5 bucks. For the coverage in perpetuity, not per year.

Y'know, if appearing in the Manly Daily is such great press, can't Manly and/or Warringah leverage the popularity that either causes or comes from that press coverage to obtain the requisite sponsorship and other revenue to run their clubs without ARU money?

I never said anything about profit. I think they should be sustainable, which I guess means over whatever cycle they need to break even. Is that such a ludicrous suggestion? That (ostensibly) amateur footy clubs should have spending that doesn't exceed the revenues they are able to originate? It's pretty much what every other club on the planet has to manage.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
The Manly Daily? Seriously? That's the most positive externality that you could come up with? To answer your (rhetorical, I know), the value I put on that is about 5 bucks. For the coverage in perpetuity, not per year.

Y'know, if appearing in the Manly Daily is such great press, can't Manly and/or Warringah leverage the popularity that either causes or comes from that press coverage to obtain the requisite sponsorship and other revenue to run their clubs without ARU money?

I never said anything about profit. I think they should be sustainable, which I guess means over whatever cycle they need to break even. Is that such a ludicrous suggestion? That (ostensibly) amateur footy clubs should have spending that doesn't exceed the revenues they are able to originate? It's pretty much what every other club on the planet has to manage.

The Manly Daily is but one example as I'm sure that even you are aware. Does the word "most" appear anywhere in my post? The reason I come up with it is it's because its the local paper where I live - funny about that. I'm actually astonished that anyone living in a modern society doesn't understand the value of free publicity in the media. All sports need coverage to generate interest - local, metropolitan and national. Even the ARU have worked that one out.

So no club on the planet in any sport receives money from its governing body to assist its development? Are you seriously putting that?

You don't think that some of the money earn't by the AFL and NRL in Australia is used to support grass roots amateur clubs?
 

Biffo

Ken Catchpole (46)
i must declare that i have never had a look at the ARU's finances.
however, i have a question.
haven't BillyPoo and MicklePorker and The-Eels been telling us for years that the Wallabies are the great cash cow that must be fed very (make that extremely) well to create massive piles of cash for the states and clubs?
then they ask the kids to pay up to support the top levels of the game.
hhhmmmmm, something's crook here.
 

Biffo

Ken Catchpole (46)
art-joyce61-420x0.jpg


4458212-3x2-940x627.jpg





We're going through some tough times at the moment, but they're not our fault. The board and the CEO are doing all doing a fantastic job. We've got some great plans which will usher in a new golden age (I know we've said that before, but this time it's true)


wouldn't they be just the best of mates?
 
T

TOCC

Guest
I understand people are frustrated by the move to cut $28'000 but I'm yet to see a coherent argument justifying why the clubs deserve $28'000 that other clubs in Melbourne, Canberra and Perth aren't offered?

Am i to believe that a club like Sydney Uni has received $1million in funding over the past 10 years? What does the Shute Shield have to show for the $10million in funding it has received since 2004?
Where has that money gone?
For those involved in the Shute Shield scene, can the clubs put their hands on their hearts and say that players aren't/weren't receiving some of that funding?
 

I like to watch

David Codey (61)
My argument is that the ARU keeps talking up their commitment to the grassroots,whilst their actions are entirely diametrically opposed to this objective.
Sure most SS pay their players,but most have a budget in excess of 1/2 Million,but would pay less than 1/2 that in player wages.
So in my view the ARU kicking in 10% of the rest of their expenses is less than satisfactory.
The question for me is not do the SS clubs deserve it,it's who else qualifies for ARU support.
 
T

TOCC

Guest
Its not really an argument of who is more deserving(Sevens, Wallaroos, U20's), its about justifying why that grant should exist in the first place..

Why should the ARU continue to provide grants to clubs who are capable of generating the revenue themselves?
Do you think the Shute Shield clubs have justified the $10million(possibly more) it has receive in grants since 2003?
Premier Grade in Brisbane must be in a similar position, having received $millions in funding since 2003, and what is their to show for that?
 

Dave Beat

Paul McLean (56)
Its not really an argument of who is more deserving(Sevens, Wallaroos, U20's), its about justifying why that grant should exist in the first place..

Why should the ARU continue to provide grants to clubs who are capable of generating the revenue themselves?
Do you think the Shute Shield clubs have justified the $10million(possibly more) it has receive in grants since 2003?
Premier Grade in Brisbane must be in a similar position, having received $millions in funding since 2003, and what is their to show for that?
Interesting question, I have referenced supporting clubs, and paying attention to growing / stimulating the areas that can grow. The Shute is in my back yard so yes know about that a lot more than other comps.
Since 2003 a number of QLD, and NSW players have strengthened the likes of WA, VIC, ACT so yeah I do think investment has provided growth.

I think investing in NSW, and QLD will also provide a greater return because they are rugby dominant States, and this my filter through to other states with the Rebels / Force / Brumbies working with the NRC sides to develop the local completions development.

So yeah contributions since 2003 have benefited Australian Rugby.
 

Wilson

Tony Shaw (54)
Not sure if it's been answered already, but has the ARU been funding any of the other top tier club comps in Australia and if so have they also lost their grants?
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
Dave your argument is flawed. Would those players cease to exist without SS? The alternative is contracting and putting below super rugby players in subbies. But with the NRC this becomes a moot point anyway.

My point is without SS there would still be quality juniors through the array of systems and rep teams, and the only thing missing would be the incubator until they mature enough. Rep teams go to 20s now as well.

To act like SS is developing players that wouldn't exist is a joke. It previously played the part of intermediate development but over time with the NRC players will be in playing this new level earlier.

Using that money to reduce junior subs would be the best use of the money.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
Its not really an argument of who is more deserving(Sevens, Wallaroos, U20's), its about justifying why that grant should exist in the first place..

Why should the ARU continue to provide grants to clubs who are capable of generating the revenue themselves?
Do you think the Shute Shield clubs have justified the $10million(possibly more) it has receive in grants since 2003?
Premier Grade in Brisbane must be in a similar position, having received $millions in funding since 2003, and what is their to show for that?

Two high class competitions which provide development for players between schools/juniors and the professional level.:)
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
Dave your argument is flawed. Would those players cease to exist without SS? The alternative is contracting and putting below super rugby players in subbies. But with the NRC this becomes a moot point anyway.

My point is without SS there would still be quality juniors through the array of systems and rep teams, and the only thing missing would be the incubator until they mature enough. Rep teams go to 20s now as well.

To act like SS is developing players that wouldn't exist is a joke. It previously played the part of intermediate development but over time with the NRC players will be in playing this new level earlier.

Using that money to reduce junior subs would be the best use of the money.

Although the NRC isn't played until after the super season finishes. The non-super players need somewhere to play in that time. The higher standard of competition that those players are in between March and August, the better they will be when the NRC starts. It's all part of a bigger structure - you weaken one part and the levels above and below suffer.

Stronger juniors=stonger colts=stronger clubs=stronger NRC=stronger super teams=stronger Wallabies.

These array of rep systems of which you speak are typically run for short periods of time, but to develop properly players need week to week intensity. It's actually the norm in world sport for club based competitions to develop players for the next level up. It's the most cost effective way to develop high numbers of players - far more cost effective than developing only the narrow elite and hoping you have enough of them to survive.

I'm a supporter of the NRC, but it isn't a magic potion to fix Australian rugby. It's first year has been good, but the Sydney teams need some tweeking. Rays and Rams have got it right - which covers the north east and north west of the city. If we're going to have the Sydney Stars, they need to be responsible for more that the immediate area around Sydney Uni and the basket-weavers down at Balmain. If they are going to stay in the inner city they get the whole south-east quarter to develop - bad luck to Randwick and Easts, you guys had your chance to be part of the solution. Then base the country team at Cambelltown (which is affiliated with Illawarra and the CRU now anyway).

However, I await from the ARU, the overarching strategy of how to fund the game at its various levels. Simply taking money off the Sydney and Brisbane clubs is bad decision-making. Where's the plan Bill? Gushing platitutes about supporting the grass roots need to be supported by action, resources and money.
 

Dave Beat

Paul McLean (56)
Y
Dave your argument is flawed. Would those players cease to exist without SS? The alternative is contracting and putting below super rugby players in subbies. But with the NRC this becomes a moot point anyway.

My point is without SS there would still be quality juniors through the array of systems and rep teams, and the only thing missing would be the incubator until they mature enough. Rep teams go to 20s now as well.

To act like SS is developing players that wouldn't exist is a joke. It previously played the part of intermediate development but over time with the NRC players will be in playing this new level earlier.

Using that money to reduce junior subs would be the best use of the money.
I didn't say they developed players, but the fact is for years Schools onto colts, colts onto Shute flowed to state, and State flowed to National.
Wake up and realize that the Premier comps have provided the pathway.
You spend so much time being critical (as above) why not try and develop on systems that have been working.
 

I like to watch

David Codey (61)
Dave your argument is flawed. Would those players cease to exist without SS? The alternative is contracting and putting below super rugby players in subbies. But with the NRC this becomes a moot point anyway.

My point is without SS there would still be quality juniors through the array of systems and rep teams, and the only thing missing would be the incubator until they mature enough. Rep teams go to 20s now as well.

To act like SS is developing players that wouldn't exist is a joke. It previously played the part of intermediate development but over time with the NRC players will be in playing this new level earlier.

Using that money to reduce junior subs would be the best use of the money.
They would cease to exist as Rugby players.
You can't have a 20's rep team without a quality comp from which to recruit them from.
What happens to 21 yo's?
How many of these are in Soup squads?
where can they get good competition between School & gaining a pro contract?
I understand you are against subsidies to SS clubs,but the Rats president made a good point in the press yesterday that they account for 2,000 players including their village clubs.
It's more than just a First grade side in the SS.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
Will removing $28'000 from each club cease this from been the case?

Any withdrawal of funding has an impact.

But I was answering you question on the funding supplied to Sydney and Brisbane clubs:
having received $millions in funding since 2003, and what is their to show for that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top