The Pulverisation of Australian Rugby

[formerflanker]

I suppose your answer is "they all are" but we (this site) went through the easts accounts about a year ago and I'd be surprised if Parra were worse off than they were back then.
Manly look to be in good shape, and with Uni I would suspect that's about it.
I should say I'd be more than happy for, say, Parra and Penrith to get the whole of the ARU grant money in the hope that it could be spent where rugby needs to focus its efforts.

Dave Beat is right - a hard working board has shored up Manly's finances with 95% collection of player subs, attracting a host of sponsors in the Major/Gold/Silver categories, match day BBQs, merchandise, Sportsman lunch, and the creation of a new financial tool the Manly Foundation.
I know lots of clubs are already on the same pathway and I wish them similar success.

 

[Train Without a Station]

And there's an indication of the malaise.

It's taken clubs coming close to financial ruin to discover they need to ensure that they need to collect their subs if they want to stay solvent.

 

[Train Without a Station]

But good work for Manly without any strong institutional support developing their club to being on the path to being commercially strong.

 

[MarkJ]

People were talking about getting someone competent. (She was the Westpac CEO actually)

The ex NAB CEO is already on the ARU board - Cameron Clyne

 

[Dave Beat]

Manly look to be in good shape, and with Uni I would suspect that's about it.
I should say I'd be more than happy for, say, Parra and Penrith to get the whole of the ARU grant money in the hope that it could be spent where rugby needs to focus its efforts.

Yes interesting and that is were it becomes difficult,

Should a club that has bad administration be given money so it disappears.

I don't have a solution, and only have ideas.

If it was my business I'd be looking to invest in the business models that are working. Just my view, and no doubt some posters are possibly happy to through away other businesses money.

Nothing happens over night - take a look at 2 Blues journey over the past 4 years - well done Belly.

 

[Train Without a Station]

But Dave if it's working why does it need investment?

 

[Dave Beat]

But Dave if it's working why does it need investment?

You have possibly not read my posts / understood them.
1. I have referenced "clubs" (but the article I read related to the shute shield).
2. I have referenced clubs working with the Community, Schools, Grass roots.
3. I have referenced that using "Premier Clubs" in each state may be a more economical way of lifting mini & junior rugby.
You will note a few posts up - Belly - uses these grants in assisting the grass roots, if clubs are doing the right thing/s and it is working - it is far better tipping money down a whole that is not.

 

[Braveheart81]

I don't think anyone doubts that Shute Shield clubs do a lot with little money, primarily through the utilisation of lots of volunteer manpower.

If the question is whether the ARU reduces expenditure substantially or goes broke next year, the discretionary expenditure will get cut.

Thankfully, the ARU is not the primary source of funding for Shute Shield clubs.

In an ideal world, club rugby and other grass roots rugby would be given more money. Unfortunately, it's not an ideal world.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

And there's an indication of the malaise.

It's taken clubs coming close to financial ruin to discover they need to ensure that they need to collect their subs if they want to stay solvent.

I think this betrays the basis of your view about "the clubs": @ $200 per player that's $24,000. Can you even get the floodlights turned on for a season for that amount?
And that's not to say they shouldn't be collected.
The clubs have been more or less "close to financial ruin" all my life - as have many many small clubs. Rugby clubs attract sponsorship that belies their insignificance but that does not excuse the ARU from wasting the money it wastes or allow it to gouge juniors.
They are the life blood of S15 and higher: they are so good at what they do that the ARU got them to run the NRC, and it was the ARU that needed the third tier not the clubs.

 

[Braveheart81]

Club rugby is entirely reliant on the professional game to generate revenue to pass down.

I don't think there are many people who don't think Australian rugby needs the NRC to work to help improve the professional game and our ability to compete at the top level.

It is becoming clearer that the game won't generate enough money if we can't compete with NZ and fall behind South Africa as well. The ability for Australian rugby to succeed commercially requires the Wallabies to be successful.

The clubs need the Wallabies to be doing better otherwise the money dries up.

 

[Train Without a Station]

You have possibly not read my posts / understood them.
1. I have referenced "clubs" (but the article I read related to the shute shield).
2. I have referenced clubs working with the Community, Schools, Grass roots.
3. I have referenced that using "Premier Clubs" in each state may be a more economical way of lifting mini & junior rugby.
You will note a few posts up - Belly - uses these grants in assisting the grass roots, if clubs are doing the right thing/s and it is working - it is far better tipping money down a whole that is not.

The problem is Dave, there is no equitable solution where giving money to the clubs is well used.

If the ARU are going to give money with this purpose really they should be implementing it much like the AFL do.

Otherwise there becomes issues with claims of double standards, etc.

In society we are governed by the shortcomings and needs of the many. If Parramatta and Manly are in the minority in doing the right things, for the right reasons then they are unfortunately those that lose out due to the shortcomings of the majority.

And IS, don't sit there and act as though the clubs run the NRC as some altruistic gesture. They do it to maintain relevance in the rugby landscape. If the NRC is successful, this will benefit those clubs in the long term much like the NRL has benefited the NSWRL clubs that survived. None were forced into it, but almost all complained because they were marginalized by the ARC.

 

[I like to watch]

The ARU promotes itself as a professional organisation,supposedly run by successful and professional managers.
If they can't run it profitably,then the cuts need to be made to the wallaby setup,grants to the professional Soup franchises or in their administration.
Mugging 6 year olds for tuck shop money is an appalling decision.
Loading up Premier Clubs with the additional cost of running the 3rd tier,whilst at the same time removing long term support with no lead time,is weak management.
Pulver is saying he can't control his P & L so he will transfer the problem to a group of amateur boards to do his work for him.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

And IS, don't sit there and act as though the clubs run the NRC as some altruistic gesture. They do it to maintain relevance in the rugby landscape. If the NRC is successful, this will benefit those clubs in the long term much like the NRL has benefited the NSWRL clubs that survived. None were forced into it, but almost all complained because they were marginalized by the ARC.

They did it because of FOMO - fear of missing out: not knowing where it would end up.
Eastwood pulled the pin for financial reasons and it was a very close run thing for some of the other teams so i have been told.
I'm not sure why but you obviously have a very low opinion of the Clubs: they must be doing something right as they produce 64% of pro footballers and do so, as they have always done on the smell of an oily rag.
In terms of benefitting the clubs: that remains to be seen. Is it definitely going ahead in 2015? Will it be televised?
Don't forget that however badly run the clubs have been it was they who permitted rugby to get to the point of going professional: we've won as many world cups when amateur as pro.

 

[Train Without a Station]

IIWII, I agree with your comments on the Levy.

But don't give me this "Loading up Premier Clubs with the additional cost of running the 3rd tier". It's the clubs that fought the hardest against the ARC because they weren't involved.

They were given the opportunity to be involved this time around if they wanted to invest in their future, as the ARU was doing with Australian Rugby's. If the NRC is a viable TV product, there will be financial windfalls for the teams involved.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

They were given the opportunity to be involved this time around if they wanted to invest in their future, as the ARU was doing with Australian Rugby's. If the NRC is a viable TV product, there will be financial windfalls for the teams involved.

You've crossed the line with that one.
At their risk and at their cost in circumstances where the ARU takes the view that the Wallabies and S15 are not long term viable without a third tier.
A complete abdication of their role and responsibility: responsibility should rest on the same shoulders as does implementation in any functional system of management.

 

[Braveheart81]

The ARU promotes itself as a professional organisation,supposedly run by successful and professional managers.
If they can't run it profitably,then the cuts need to be made to the wallaby setup,grants to the professional Soup franchises or in their administration.
Mugging 6 year olds for tuck shop money is an appalling decision.
Loading up Premier Clubs with the additional cost of running the 3rd tier,whilst at the same time removing long term support with no lead time,is weak management.
Pulver is saying he can't control his P & L so he will transfer the problem to a group of amateur boards to do his work for him.

Money has been cut from the Wallabies. The portion that goes to players is always going to remain relatively consistent though and is consistent with other sports.

Grants to Super Rugby franchises largely come through the TV money. The Super Rugby franchises generally have an obligation to fund their state union below them through an annual dividend.

I agree completely that the levy on junior clubs was outrageous.

Surely Bill Pulver is controlling his P&L by cutting expenditure.

Don't forget that however badly run the clubs have been it was they who permitted rugby to get to the point of going professional: we've won as many world cups when amateur as pro.

The further we get from rugby going professional, the further away we've got from winning a RWC.

I'd argue that part of the reason for that is that we haven't adapted to a model that suits the professional game as well as our closest rivals and have fallen behind because of that.

 

[TOCC]

Shute Shield clubs weren't forced into the NRC, just ask Eastwood..

 

[Train Without a Station]

1. I'm not sure why but you obviously have a very low opinion of the Clubs:
must be doing something right as they produce 64% of pro footballers and do so, as they have always done on the smell of an oily rag.

2. In terms of benefitting the clubs: that remains to be seen. Is it definitely going ahead in 2015?

3. Don't forget that however badly run the clubs have been it was they who permitted rugby to get to the point of going professional: we've won as many world cups when amateur as pro.

1. Yep. They are one of the biggest vested interests that has held Australian Rugby back. Any groups that fight so strongly against the prospect of enforcing amateurism, then complain that they're external funding is removed needs to take a long hard look at themselves. They complain that they can afford to pay players despite the ARU's concerns over their viability, then complain the ARU won't assist in propping them up.

Where does this 64% come from. The clubs want to make it sound as though they take nobodies off the street and turn them into professionals. How many players have the clubs produced that weren't part of a major schools competition, and junior rep system. That's what the clubs really produce. Otherwise it's just an incubator for some of those players are aren't immediately ready for professionalism after school.

I'm not saying the Shute Shield is not a good thing. It is. I am saying that it's not so amazing that it must be supported by the ARU at all (financial) costs.

2. That's like any investment. If I dump all my money in shares it remains to be seen whether I will make money. I do it on the prospect and the assessed likelihood of this being the case though.


3. Well there were 3 World Cups in the Amateur era. In that time we were heavily supported by the AIS, enabling our best players to get the benefits of professionalism (excluding the money). Many would argue that with professionalism, other nations have caught up and overtaken us.

Shute Shield is a great addition for rugby if Australian Rugby can afford it. I'd argue with the ARU not making much money and Shute Shield clubs seemingly being less financially stable than equivalent clubs in other sporting competitions, that it is not very financially viable though.

But don't argue like rugby players would disappear if the Shute Shield ceased to exist. It would be to rugby's detriment but market forces would dictate the premier competition and teams. There would be a lag period of course which is the detriment, and would result in players taking a greater period of time to prepare themselves to transition to the professional game. If the NRC is successful, it will resolve that though.

 

[Train Without a Station]

You've crossed the line with that one.
At their risk and at their cost in circumstances where the ARU takes the view that the Wallabies and S15 are not long term viable without a third tier.
A complete abdication of their role and responsibility: responsibility should rest on the same shoulders as does implementation in any functional system of management.

Well what are the ARU supposed to do? Create their own teams and have everybody piss and moan like they did in '07?

Every other fucking state did what the state union wanted without much of an issue (I say much due to a few complaints about the Vikings).

We could have had a single team put in by the NSWRU/Waratahs. No risk by the clubs and I can guarantee there would have been a massive uproar from the clubs about not being involved and that the Shute Shield was Australia's real 3rd tier.

If you want to be a stakeholder, stump up the cash and the time and get involved. Otherwise shut the fuck up and get the fuck out of the way as they try to do it.

Don't piss and moan when they leave you out, and then complain that you've been burdened with the cost when they ask if you want to be involved. Pick your side and deal with it.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Where does this 64% come from. The clubs want to make it sound as though they take nobodies off the street and turn them into professionals. How many players have the clubs produced that weren't part of a major schools competition, and junior rep system. That's what the clubs really produce. Otherwise it's just an incubator for some of those players are aren't immediately ready for professionalism after school.

This shows your background: none are. Not a single one from 2013 played s 15 this year, IIRC.
The ARU has no independent right to exist in its present form: it survives on goodwill from countless volunteers while the board sup on fine wine and golden parachutes employing their old school buddies.
You should get out there and actually look at the work put in by the Clubs: all back training in November, amateur coaches in all but the top positions, amateur players for all but the top spots.
And imagine the uproar from the other states if NSW and QLD had field just one team in NRC - how would that have sat with Fox? How would it have answered the ARU's self imposed and desperate need for a 3rd tier?
As for the ARC its demise lies squarely at the feet of JON - the money it cost to run he sagely foresaw would be need to pay him his exit fee.
Any way I shall try to restrain myself from repeating my arguments - I swore off this site!