• 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.

Braveheart81

James Horwill (77)
Staff member
I'm confused where people think the ARU should get the funding to provide to Shute Shield clubs at a time when the ARU is losing money (and going into a RWC year which is their worst in every four year cycle).

When things are going well, the ARU can provide additional grants to club rugby. When it isn't, these things will be amongst the first to go.

There's only so much from the expense side of the equation that the ARU can cut and keep funding everything. When the revenue isn't there, there will have to be reductions.

Rugby in Australia is still adjusting to becoming a professional game. In sports around the world, that generally means that the pathway to get to professionalism is strengthened but the grass roots and amateur side of things is weakened. The gap between the professional players and the amateurs who train two or three nights a week and maintain another career is only going to widen.

This is obviously a very emotive issue. Those closely aligned to Shute Shield clubs feel very marginalised. That has been happening for 15+ years though.

The failure of Australian rugby to adapt over time to professionalism has left things in a parlous state. We've just started our second attempt at a (semi) professional 3rd tier and are well behind our main rivals on that.
 

Dctarget

David Codey (61)
Hey I might've skipped a beat, but these cuts aren't diverting money elsewhere, it's because we don't have the money. I'd imagine Pulver agrees about the necessity of SS etc. But where is this money coming from? Idealistically sure, have the funding, but the ARU can't afford it. So it's all well and good suggesting that you must have the money, but highlight another area of Rugby that can afford to lose their funding.


Edit: looks like BH beat me to the point.
 

I like to watch

David Codey (61)
The ARU had turnover of $140 odd Million last year.
Grants to SS clubs are $330k
That's petty cash.

It's been said plenty of times that 2/3 of the Wallaby squad are products of Premier Club Rugby.
What business would risk 2/3 of their prime product for an annual investment of about a 1/4 of 1% of their turnover?
 

I like to watch

David Codey (61)
As an aside,I can't access any if their annual reports ATM,but my recollection was that all the ARU's broadcast income is never hedged.
Given the performance if the AUD over the past year it should be a nice little bonus for the ARU.
 

Braveheart81

James Horwill (77)
Staff member
The ARU had turnover of $140 odd Million last year.
Grants to SS clubs are $330k
That's petty cash.

It's been said plenty of times that 2/3 of the Wallaby squad are products of Premier Club Rugby.
What business would risk 2/3 of their prime product for an annual investment of about a 1/4 of 1% of their turnover?

If that was the entirety of the budget for those clubs then it would carry more weight.

What is the ARU retained the direct funding to clubs and instead reduced the funding to the state unions by similar amounts? It would have largely the same effect.

The ARU is trying to reduce their annual losses, not trying to determine where shares of their revenue end up. The things to go will always be items there is discretion over.

Large percentages of the ARU's revenue are already spoken for in terms of fixed costs like the players' share of revenue and the cost of sales in terms of putting on the tests generate the income.

People are making it out like this is just the ARU being stingy as opposed to being in a poor financial state.

The amateur elements of rugby that the ARU has least control over are always going to lose out in this situation.
 

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Large percentages of the ARU's revenue are already spoken for in terms of fixed costs like the players' share of revenue and the cost of sales in terms of putting on the tests generate the income.

This is entirely circular unless and until you define the purpose of the ARU.
Generate income for what? to spend it on generating income etc etc etc
 

I like to watch

David Codey (61)
If that was the entirety of the budget for those clubs then it would carry more weight.

What is the ARU retained the direct funding to clubs and instead reduced the funding to the state unions by similar amounts? It would have largely the same effect.

The ARU is trying to reduce their annual losses, not trying to determine where shares of their revenue end up. The things to go will always be items there is discretion over.

Large percentages of the ARU's revenue are already spoken for in terms of fixed costs like the players' share of revenue and the cost of sales in terms of putting on the tests generate the income.

People are making it out like this is just the ARU being stingy as opposed to being in a poor financial state.

The amateur elements of rugby that the ARU has least control over are always going to lose out in this situation.
C'mon.
It's less than 1/4 of 1% of turnover, it's what they spend on stationary,or Board travel expenses.
It changes nothing for the ARU.

It's less than his bonus.
What chance of him not qualifying for that this year,despite the pronouncements of the joint being close to insolvent?

What is the ARU's mission statement?
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
I wondered about that - do you say they get all air travel for free?


Based on my understanding of the AFL where teams are provided flights for free as part of Virgin's AFL sponsorship I'd imagine this would be the same with Qantas. These would likely be provided through their affiliates overseas too.

Obviously there's costs. But the largest one is covered by sponsorship.
 
T

TOCC

Guest
I think some people in this thread need to check rule 10... this argument is going nowhere....
 

Pfitzy

Jason Little (69)
The ARU had turnover of $140 odd Million last year.
Grants to SS clubs are $330k
That's petty cash.

It's been said plenty of times that 2/3 of the Wallaby squad are products of Premier Club Rugby.
What business would risk 2/3 of their prime product for an annual investment of about a 1/4 of 1% of their turnover?


The same business that has allowed NSW to have so many governing bodies instead of telling them to sort their shit out.
 

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Based on my understanding of the AFL where teams are provided flights for free as part of Virgin's AFL sponsorship I'd imagine this would be the same with Qantas. These would likely be provided through their affiliates overseas too.

Obviously there's costs. But the largest one is covered by sponsorship.

I reckon it must cost $500k (retail) to get them over to Europe - you really couldn't do it unless it was contra.
And just think about those numbers makes you wonder about the AB's and to a lesser extent the Boks.
And that got me thinking - the amount of money spent means all the unions from down under must struggle (which is confirmed in NZ).
And then my cynical nature caused me to think - well someone's making money out of this if its not the unions.
And this popped into my head:
rupert-murdoch.jpg
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
As far as I'm aware most mainstream sports teams/leagues have airline sponsors.
 

Strewthcobber

Mark Ella (57)
http://www.fin24.com/Companies/TravelAndLeisure/SAA-gives-millions-in-sports-sponsorships-20120411


Cape Town - South African Airways (SAA) has spent about R269m on sponsorships for a variety of South African sports federations since 2010.

The bulk of the sponsorships comprises free air tickets.

Gigaba said the sponsorships include air tickets to the value of R91.1m given to the Springboks, the u/20 Springboks and the Sevens Springbok teams.
Boks are covered. QANTAS and Air NZ would be similar
 

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
So Rupert gets all this on a plate - and lets face it for all the bleating it must be a good product or he would not want it or keep paying more for it - while the airlines chase a few dollars on each seat and, in this country, brings on a Lord of the Flies scenario in which lovers of the game turn on one another over a lousy $28k - 3 games for a test player.
 

Dave Beat

Paul McLean (56)
I'm confused where people think the ARU should get the funding to provide to Shute Shield clubs at a time when the ARU is losing money (and going into a RWC year which is their worst in every four year cycle).

When things are going well, the ARU can provide additional grants to club rugby. When it isn't, these things will be amongst the first to go.

There's only so much from the expense side of the equation that the ARU can cut and keep funding everything. When the revenue isn't there, there will have to be reductions.

Rugby in Australia is still adjusting to becoming a professional game. In sports around the world, that generally means that the pathway to get to professionalism is strengthened but the grass roots and amateur side of things is weakened. The gap between the professional players and the amateurs who train two or three nights a week and maintain another career is only going to widen.

This is obviously a very emotive issue. Those closely aligned to Shute Shield clubs feel very marginalised. That has been happening for 15+ years though.

The failure of Australian rugby to adapt over time to professionalism has left things in a parlous state. We've just started our second attempt at a (semi) professional 3rd tier and are well behind our main rivals on that.


I do understand the point you are making, which leads to the question given it is a $330k expense is this expense the wisest reduction?
A club can generate interest, exposure, which may then lead up the tree to revenue a simple example.
  • A SS club may have a members package that include Super and Test rugby and therefore patronage at higher levels.
  • Are there other areas that may not have a revenue flow?
  • I'd love to know what the ARU business plan looks like, and what their aspirations are.
Could there be reduced salaries which are offset be incentives.
Could there be other areas that need to be looked at rather that possibly starving an area which does provide growth?
 

Lorenzo

Arch Winning (36)
I'd wager they've figured out that money into SS clubs is the equivalent of tearing it up. The SS clubs don't have some amazing unreplicable wallaby production technique, they just happen to be where the better semi-amateur players people play rugby when they aren't a pro and aren't at school.

Rugby will continue to exist below NRC level and above schools. If there's some club consolidation because some can't exist without their 10 grand from the ARU, it would probably be gain rather than a loss. The only people upset about it will be the people on this forum emotionally wedded to a certain club. No one else will give a shit.
 

Dave Beat

Paul McLean (56)
I'd wager they've figured out that money into SS clubs is the equivalent of tearing it up. The SS clubs don't have some amazing unreplicable wallaby production technique, they just happen to be where the better semi-amateur players people play rugby when they aren't a pro and aren't at school.

Rugby will continue to exist below NRC level and above schools. If there's some club consolidation because some can't exist without their 10 grand from the ARU, it would probably be gain rather than a loss. The only people upset about it will be the people on this forum emotionally wedded to a certain club. No one else will give a shit.


Sitting outside of the ARU 4 walls, and only relying on media, and maybe media spin we can only provide our thoughts.

From the outside ARU appears very ad hoc with little planning or thoughts, this could be entirely different though inside the room.

My thoughts, and a number of others that appear to have a similar thought - they are concerned about the grass roots of our game, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Some posters are critical but provide no solution rather than - let nature take it's coarse. Using nature as an example then (& i am no greeny) some animals are becoming extinct because they are loosing their land / food.

You are not wrong in what you are saying, but would you know the role of Michael Hawker by any chance - do we need a Michael Hawker, and also a Bill Pulver?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top