By Andrew Logan
January 15th 2008 @ 6:26am
ARC: Let sleeping dogs lie
The Australian newspaper couldn’t resist last weekend giving the dear departed dog of the ARC a kick to try to breathe some life into its prostrate carcass, and have a sly dig at the new ARU in the process.
It must be a pretty slow news week in Australian rugby as editor Wayne Smith was reduced to a transparent advertisement for the old regime, and a none-too-subtle backhander in the direction of “a select group of powerful Sydney clubs”.
Exactly which clubs are in question is unclear, however according to the article, “the ARC made it easy for them by coming in so badly over budget, but the haste with which it was killed off was still unseemly and, frankly, suspicious”.
I’ve got to say, this line of conspiracy-theory journalism makes me shake my head. I wonder just how much money the ARC would have had to burn, and just how small the crowds would have had to be before the pro-ARC-at-any-cost lobby would agree that whilst it was a unarguably a brilliant spectacle and a great development opportunity, it probably wasn’t quite worth the flabbergasting amount of cash that it burned through.
Perhaps the most imprudent paragraph from article in The Australian was this one. “There is no denying that the ARU’s cash reserves are down, but that was going to happen anyway in a World Cup year, let alone in a World Cup year in which the long-awaited third tier competition finally, belatedly was launched. This year’s figures will be dramatically better. Some $8 million is heading the ARU’s way, Australia’s cut of the IRB’s World Cup pie. As well, another $3m is set to flow into the ARU coffers from the Hong Kong Test against the All Blacks in November, another initiative of the Flowers regime.”
Where to start with that? How about the money? According to the 2006 ARU Annual Report, the ARU had cash reserves of $22,486,000 at the end of the financial year which means that when the ARU burned through $4.7 million in its first year of the ARC, the amount was equal to almost 21% of its available cash. Try going to any CEO in the country and tell them you have a program which is going to burn 20% of their cash at bank in year 1 and still more in years 2 and 3, with no guarantees of ever turning a profit, and see how many of them give you the green light.
Of course, some would have us believe it is about cost cutting, and that with some judicious slicing and dicing, the ARC could have continued on its way. Anyone who tells you that could use a refresher in basic economics, since the rate of cashburn would need to be more like 5% than 20%. No-one appears to have yet worked out a plan for dropping a full $3,500,000 off last years operating figure, or a way to compete with the 3 other codes for the crowds who didn’t turn out in the required numbers at the ARC games.
In any case, why doesn’t the launch of a major third tier initiative in a year when expenses are highest, and when the attention of the majority of the market is diverted by one of the biggest sporting events in the world, deserve scrutiny? Most marketing managers in the ASX 100 would say that this strategy wasn’t sound, and they’d be right. But, according to The Australian, it doesn’t matter because we’re getting $8M from the IRB for the World Cup and another $3M from the mooted November Hong Kong Test against the All Blacks. Unfortunately, editor Wayne Smith wrote in his article Barbarians back on menu that “the Wallabies can look forward to a five-match tour in November, starting with the still-to-be-confirmed Test against the All Blacks in Hong Kong” which would suggest that unless he knows something he’s not telling us, the $3M he’s banking on is also “still-to-be-confirmed”.
The Australian finishes by making the assertion that the Hong Kong Test was “another initiative of the Flowers regime”, as though this was one of many achievements. In the above paragraph, that regime managed to burn over 20% of the ARU cash reserves; schedule a major new product launch (the ARC) in competition with the biggest global event in its market (the RWC); sell out history and tradition between Australia and its greatest foe, the All Blacks; and move the Test in question to Hong Kong where few of the true fans of either country will get to see it anyway – if it actually goes ahead. Achievements indeed.
My point is this. It is fair to say that pretty much everyone in Australian rugby agrees that we need a third tier. It is the pressing requirement in Australian rugby development right now. But whatever the new enterprise is, it has to adhere to some commercial business principles. In that respect, the rules for the ARU are no different to BHP, NAB or any other corporate you’d like to name.
Basic cash management suggests that you don’t burn through 20% of your available reserves in year 1 of what is likely to be non-profitable exercise. If it looks like you’re going to repeat the experience, you probably need to think twice about continuing.
Risk management principles would indicate that heavy investment in, and sole ownership of, an organisation where your only available personnel are members of a militant union which is clearly hostile to you, is not a good idea. Some of the risk at least needs to be shared or offloaded.
There must be a cash return on investment. If not immediately, then it would be reasonable to expect to break even at around 3 years. If there is no guarantee that the enterprise will ever be profitable, then there is no reason why any organisation should invest money in it.
Talent development is not a valid reason for an investment of this magnitude. To put it in perspective - in 2001 for example, the training and development budgets of S&P 500 companies represented between 5% and 20% percent of total corporate profits. If the ARC was a training and development program and its loss was expressed as a portion of ARU profits it would be a tough equation, since the ARU had a net deficit before tax of $6,339,000 in 2006. However, using a mean S&P yardstick of 12.5%, the ARU would have had to make a $37.6 million profit for this expenditure to be valid as a training and development expense – a turnaround of a massive $43,939,000.
Even averaged across players, the numbers make a mockery of the talent development argument. There were roughly 240 players in the ARC. If 20 of those players went on to secure new Super 14 contracts (5 new players per franchise which is unlikely), the talent development cost to the ARU for 2007 would have been about $235,000 for every unproven rookie who gains a Super 14 contract.
It is eminently clear to those with a grasp of business principles that the ARC was a great concept, but one which was executed with an exceedingly optimistic economic outlook. In the commercial world there are often good ideas which cost stacks of money and which just don’t work. The Segway springs to mind. The talent is not in coaxing these ideas along and keeping everyone happy. Those who have read Seth Godins book “The Dip” will know that the real talent is in making the decision to quit a cul-de-sac and move on to something with a genuine future.
Of course such a decision leaves the decision-makers wide open to criticism – in this case the criticism that they are somehow in bed with the “powerful Sydney clubs”. This sort of fear-mongering doesn’t help.
It is true that some clubs may benefit more than others. Just as in the corporate world, some companies benefit more than others, by planning, building their organizational and economic strength and being ready to take advantage of opportunities when they came by. In this way it appears that some of the strong clubs may well benefit from the possibility of a national competition geared towards clubs, but this is not conspiracy, it is simply commerce. Top level rugby, unfortunately for those of us who were reared on the innocence, loyalty and joyous simplicity of amateurism, is now a commercial enterprise first and foremost. In this sense, to paraphrase The Australian, it is mischievous to now dump all the sins of the ARC axing in the lap of an administration whose priority is to ensure that Australian rugby is brought back to financial viability.
I used to have an accountant whose mantra when making business decisions on acquisitions, or capital expenditure, was never to justify the expenditure with non-financial criteria. As he used to say, “Always make the commercial decision”. The ARU has done just that, and made an unpopular but commercial decision.
Now that decision has been made, The Australian opines “It remains to be seen what the ARU’s vision for the future might be”. Indeed it does. Perhaps we could at least wait and see what that vision is before condemning the process that led to it.
Like this article? Please spread the word about the Roar to your mates.
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(106)
swifty said | January 15th 2008 @ 7:15am | Report comment
Andrew,
I agree completely with your rational look at the ARU’s decision to drop the ARC but I just want to pick up on a small point. I don’t believe it is true that the clubs that will benefit more than others by the implementation of a national club competition will do so in the same way that some companies in the corporate world sometimes benefit more than others thanks to government decisions and the like. Such benefits in the rugby world are not simply commercial but political. The power of certain clubs in Sydney is political, developed over many years that have seen rugby in Sydney place more importance on protection of the old rather than inclusion of the new. Your article is well written enough to indicate that you are well aware that there is more to it than just purely commercial factors.
The question isn’t if some clubs will benefit more than others but, if a national club competition is brought in, which clubs should benefit so that Australian rugby best benefits. It is, afterall, the Australian Rugby Union not the Australian Rugby Free Marketplace. But then again if you look at the amount of money the ARU has spent on league recruits at the Waratahs you could be forgiven for thinking otherwise.
Spiro Zavos said | January 15th 2008 @ 7:34am | Report comment
Andrew Logan has demolished the myth of the indispensable ARC. Most of us supported the concept of a third tier in Australian rugby, which is still valid, while suggesting that the ARC formula wasn’t the right one. There seemed to be a deliberate attempt to snub the powerhouse clubs of Randwick and Sydney University. For instance, the ‘Eastern’ amalgamation of clubs played their home games at North Sydney Oval. When I asked one of the organisers of the tournament why SFS or Coogee Oval wasn’t used, he said SFS was considered too big a stadium.
The tournament was played, as Andrew points out, while the 2007 RWC was also being played. Why wasn’t it delayed a year so that rugby supporters could support it without another rugby distraction?
My answer is that part of the motivation behind launching the ARC, in my opinion, was the administration, which was under pressure for failing to maintain the achievements of the John O’Neill/John Eales/Rod Macqueen era wanted something to tell rugby people that it was succeeding in growing the game.
There will have to be a semi-professiona lrugby third tier sooner rather than later. It will have to be based, as it is in Europe around the strong clubs. Australian rugby gave up any notions of a ‘provincial’ system, unlike NZ, when the NSWRU opted for a strict district club system in 1900 (with players having to play for the clubs where they lived) to combat the growing professionalism of the code with players being paid to change from one club to another.
it may be that the third tier clubs in a new system will be able to strengthen themselves by bringing players in on contract for the duration of the tournament.
sheek said | January 15th 2008 @ 10:09am | Report comment
Andrew,
Well written. Gee, I envy your writing ability. And Spiro’s.
Anyway, the ARU might reprise the APC, & they could do a lot worse than this sensible comp. It’s basically the 4 x Aussie S14 provinces playing each other in the Sept-Oct window, where new talent can be show-cased.
6 Rounds/matches, each province playing each other twice, home & away. Best two to a final in week 7. For it to work, all the best players must be available.
Down the track, I would like to see Vic & SA involved, but in the short-term, it’s not financially viable. Whatever the future national 3rd tier comp might look like, there are several ‘musts’ to make it viable.
1. Leading players must be available. Otherwise, fans won’t be so attracted.
2. Teams must fit their locality. Sydney Fleet playing out of North Sydney oval; the Central Coast Rays made up of Sydney north shore players & East Coast Aces made up of South Brisbane players, are examples of what not to do.
3. Sponsorship & broadcasters must be secured in advance, & their support enthusiastically garnered.
4. It makes sense to go with medium crowd size grounds until support for the new comp lifts.
5. Must be willing to advertise beforehand. “No sign, no sale” principle.
6. Even though the concept might be right, the structure must also be right (see point 2). Things like history & tradition all have a starting point somewhere. So this is less of a problem, providing the structure is right from the outset.
7. The APC has the advantage of utilising current structures with a long & strong history & tradition. Build on this.
cosmos forever said | January 15th 2008 @ 10:22am | Report comment
Along with Swifty i think you’ve summarised the issue extremely well but relied a bit too heavily on the economic rationale.
I say that because I would expect the ARU vision to be less about financial viability as a sole determinant of strategy and more along the lines of a triple bottom line model.
Triple bottom line’s and balanced scorecards (and any other consultant title you would like to give it) are increasingly maturing to a point where companies that focus on a range of aims build much more sustainable platforms for growth.
I’d like to see this approach (and I’m pretty sure that’s how JON works, rather than merely managing a budget) because it will give the scarred rugby family a notion that the vision for the future is broad.
But what would the ARU triple bottom line be based on. Many companies use a financial / environmental / social measurement system, I wonder what people think the ARU’s measurement system could be. It’s pretty tough to distill the vision and operations into three elements, but I’ll have a go:
FInancial - because the other codes will swallow rugby if it isn’t viable
Talent Development and Support - so that the notion of the Wallabies and juniors are linked together and not separated
Community Engagement - because the ARC showed that if you disenfranchise the volunteers in the rugby family that keep the grass roots together you lose money, players and fans.
PS - I read the Wayne Smith article and my first thought was that $8m is hardly a windfall, at the overpriced rates Flowers negotiated that would barely cover a couple of exiting elite contracts…
Ben C said | January 15th 2008 @ 11:45am | Report comment
It seems most people agree we need a third tier. There are many reasons - greater exposure, talent development, nationalising the game etc. Profit is of course one factor and probably not an insignificant one given that rugby has had its financial ups and downs.
As I see it, there are three ways to go about. Which way to go depends on which factors are most important - is the main goal talent development with profits secondary, or making a national game with talent secondary or is profit king? I may be wrong and I haven’t searched the ARU website for a plan or mission statement but it appears that the goals have never really been defined properly. The players association no doubt thinks the goal of a third teir is to increase the size and clout of its membership. The clubs will think it is to support ‘grassroots’ rugby (ie the clubs themselves). Individual players (particularly those not on S14 contracts) will likely sympathise with the player’s association but will consider talent development and enhanced career opportunities to be the point. Ultimately it is the ARU’s decision as they are the backer and organiser and while they should seek the input of stakeholders (perhaps if only to work out how to stymie the player’s association agenda - or is that too cynical) they must make the decision as to the priorities. If the goal isn’t defined we will end up with another muddle like the ARC. The ARC produced some exciting rugby but I doubt the goal was ever clear. As Spiro and others have noted, the teams were arbitrary and the gorund choices were puzzling. Perhaps the goal was, as Spiro suggests, the appearance of activity by the Flowers regime.
As to the three ways to go about a third tier, you have the top-down or provincal scheme. This is generally successful, such as the NPC or Currie Cup but I doubt it would work in Australia. The strict district club system (I was unaware of this) doesn’t help but the main impediment is geographical. The geographical provinces (states) are too big and yield a 4 or 6 team competition which is too small for talent development and wider career opportunities. The supprt for the provinces is there but it also competes with the S14 for interest for the established states. It may lead to a feeling by supporters of sitting through too many NSW all year. It has the advantage of greater opportunities for profit as the state systems are already in place, keeping overheads down.
The second way is to select artificially smaller provinces. The ARC tried and failed at this as the tribalism and loyalties aren’t there. We don’t have a history of smaller provinces that would generate tribalism and local interest. I doubt we could get many to support North Queensland v Greater Western NSW or Gippsland Victoria v Riverina. This can yield teams across Australia to grow the game nationally and you can select as many provinces as you like to set up the desired level of player development and career opportunities. The downside, as Andrew has analysed, is the cost given the difficulty building local interest and support and the cost of setting up entire pronvincal systems from scratch. This is really only an option is the goal is player development at any cost.
The third option seems to be the bottom-up approach of buidling on the club structure. This would likely take the form of some sort of super-club level with either a defined set of ‘premium’ clubs involved from across Australia or some sort of promotion/relegation system or even a rotating system to give every club a chance. Given the geographical problems with provincal or semi-provincal tournaments this would seem to be the way to go. Overheads are contained as the club structures are in place. Again you can set the tournament up as large or as small as desired to accomodate the intended level of career opportunities. Local interest and tribal loyalty is well rooted in the club structure.
The difficulty then becomes selecting the teams as only a limited number of clubs can be involved. Do we pick a handful of clubs to be permanent ’super-clubs’ occupying a level between the current first division clubs (and still competing with them in the state/city competitions but also being members of the exclusive third tier competition). This seems to be a good way to create haves and have-nots and fracture the club system permanently. It would also lead to entrenched warfare over th criteria to pick the super-clubs. While some clubs (ie those certain to be chosen) may support it, it would be a kick in the crotch for the other clubs. Maybe the easiest way to test it is to offer that the 3 or 4 NSW super-clubs be drawn out of a hat from the existing first division clubs rather than chosen based on performance, history, contracted players etc. Any takers now? I didn’t think so.
Do we go for the egalitarian option of the teams in the third tier competition being rotated anually or biannually so every first division club gets a turn? Fairer but again likely to be as popular as a wet weekend in Wales (with no rugby playing of course). It would probably increase costs as each club would have to gear up for the third tier from scratch and there would likely be a lost of destablising player movement as a team was rotated out of the third tier. It would also be a bit disheartening and probably not good for the competition for, say, Brothers to absolutely dominate the Queensland competition but not to be in the third tier because it isn’t its turn. Egalitarianism is well and good but sports is about chancing one’s hand at success in a competitive environment and it would be contrary to that spirit to have the best club teams not facing each other because it isn’t their year. It could lead to a lot of mediocrity in the third tier which would undermine the player development and marketing aspects of a third tier competition.
This leaves a promotion and relegation system. Obviously the difficulty is setting the criteria for promotion/relegation. Do we follow the football approach of one team up and one team down from each of the NSW/QLD/ACT/WA/SA/VIC competitions each year. This encourages stability and minimises player movement and start-up costs but may limit the attractiveness of the tournament if two or three teams deserve to go up but were held back. Alternatively do we go for the best 3 or 4 teams in the NSW club competitions (which competitions - do the country teams get a shot? 3 places for suburban teams and one for the best country team), same for QLD, one or two from ACT and WA and one each from SA/VIC/NT/TAS? This puts every club on a (relatively) level playing field but may increase overheads as teams make the third tier one year and so need to set up the support for that tier but may miss out the next year.
Not an easy question, is it? I have rambled for far longer than I first intended when I started writing but I kept thinking of new issues at each level. While it is really up to the ARU and the aims it wants to pursue in the third tier, my preference is for the last proposal I suggested, a club third tier made up of the top performing teams in the respective state competitions. I might possibly be persuaded to consider a mechanism for avergaing the performance over two years so each clubs gets at least two years in the third teir to offset the start-up costs.
Andrew Logan said | January 15th 2008 @ 11:48am | Report comment
Swifty - your line - “The question isn’t if some clubs will benefit more than others but, if a national club competition is brought in, which clubs should benefit so that Australian rugby best benefits. It is, afterall, the Australian Rugby Union not the Australian Rugby Free Marketplace.” - is spot on, and I fully endorse that line of thinking. I am aware that there are a number of factors to consider outside the economics, my overall argument is simply that if the economics don’t stack up, then all other benefits are superfluous.
cosmos forever - your TBL of financial/talent development/community engagement is again exactly the type of thinking that I would endorse on the subject. For what it’s worth, I think a competition based around selected clubs lessens the financial burden on the ARU finances, reduces the risk posed by RUPA, makes talent development more accessible and affordable to players throughout clubs and also contributes to community engagement, so that is a fair direction to be looking.
Sheek - much appreciated.
Ben C said | January 15th 2008 @ 12:04pm | Report comment
Andrew
You said “my overall argument is simply that if the economics don’t stack up, then all other benefits are superfluous”.
I am going to hazard a guess and say you are an accountant or having had training in accountancy.
cosmos forever said | January 15th 2008 @ 12:10pm | Report comment
There’s no need to call people names Ben…
Andrew Logan said | January 15th 2008 @ 12:21pm | Report comment
Ouch! No, I can safely say neither. However I have been a company director which gives me a healthy appreciation for the joys and perils of cashflow.
Greg Russell said | January 15th 2008 @ 12:49pm | Report comment
Andrew,
Previously you wrote an article, “Money wasn’t the only reason why the ARC was axed”, which, although admittedly investigating a very different angle to your present article, if anything was sympathetic towards the ARC. I could be picky and point out that this time you are really saying “Money WAS the only reason why the ARC was axed”. However what I really want to do is to congratulate you for being a true critic in that you are open to both sides of a debate.
Implicit in your comment “It is fair to say that pretty much everyone in Australian rugby agrees that we need a third tier”, I actually think you are closer to Wayne Smith than your article implies. I have a lot of time for Wayne Smith, who quite clearly has excellent connections, especially in his native state of Queensland. I therefore would not be so dismissive of Smith’s statements about how the ARC was to have been leaner this year - I’d say he was reporting solid information here.
Another small point to trip you up on is the one that the ARC is an overly expensive way of unearthing just a handful of new players. I actually think the primary purpose of the ARC is to develop the many fringe Super 14 players who get little S14 game time: by exposing them to a higher standard of play, they become more ready for S14 than by playing only club rugby (broadly speaking I am referring here to players 23-32 in every S14 squad). The national provincial championship in NZ does indeed bring to light a few new S14 players each year, but primarily it improves the many players who have already spend time in S14 squads.
Spiro writes that Australia’s third-tier competition will be based on existing clubs - indeed, and so it should be. But this easy statement ignores two insuperable stumbling blocks of the past:
(1) The big clubs in each city feel morally bound to the little ones, and so they won’t split apart. It’s easy to say that Randwick and Sydney Uni should forget about Parramatta and Penrith, but past experience is that they won’t (not to mention the issue of whether it would be the right thing for the future of the game to have a national club competition without any team from Sydney’s vast west, which - as rugby league shows - is where the majority of the young talent resides).
(2) The big clubs do the numbers and get very scared. For example, let’s say that a third-tier competition has 8 teams. By the time one puts a team in Perth, Melbourne and Canberra, that leaves just 5 club teams to make it from Brisbane and Sydney. Start doing the numbers: Brothers, Qld Uni, Sunnybank, Gold Coast, Syd Uni, Randwick, Easts, Eastwood, Manly, and so on. They can’t all make it. So they all get scared that they won’t make it, and thus there is no agreement on a way forward. The nightmare scenario for all these “powerful” clubs is to miss out on the national competition and be condemned to an eternity of anonymous amateur play, but the numbers dictate that more than half of them must suffer this fate. Amalgamations is a way round this (e.g. Syd Uni-Randwick-Easts, Norths-Manly-Warringah), but this is just the current ARC in a barely different guise, and it really isn’t what each club wants (Randwick and Syd Uni together?).
What is the way forward? That is all Wayne Smith is asking, and I suspect you (and Spiro, and sheek, and …) really have as little idea as Wayne Smith when you start thinking about all the difficulties. In this context, to have something (the 2007 ARC) is better than to have nothing (the 2008 ARC).
Finally, the only thing John O’Neill couldn’t achieve in his first tenure as ARU CEO was a semi-professional club competition (and he tried really, really hard to get one going). The only thing that Gary Flowers did achieve was a semi-professional club competition. To a man with O’Neill’s super-sized ego, this must be a very bitter pill to have to swallow. Don’t discount Wayne Smith’s suggestion that ego was a major factor (although obviously not the only one) in the srapping of the ARC.
Cheers,
Greg.
Rob said | January 15th 2008 @ 1:01pm | Report comment
Off on a bit of a tangent and bouncing of ideas but some connections.
Maybe Aust Rugby is not coping with professionalism.
I dont have the stats but I wonder how many of the 1999 W/Cup squad were ear marked prior to 1995/96? We havent done that well since.
I also wonder if professionalism has developed a self-serving industry that promotes players and officials connected to the inner circle at the expense of more talented people?
Are we seeing coaching strategies and player selections coming from a narrow view that discourages alternative thinking?
Can there be a balance between entertaining (but losing) touch football and a reversion to more forward strength?
How many 20 mt runs with the ball did Ewen McKenzie or John Eales make and yet there seems to be an expectation that that is what forwards are there for.
A culture has grown where coaches and selectors are only seeing the end result.They seem to be ignoring the piano lifters.
Of course being slaves to statistics and not relying on an instinctive feel whatever needs to be proved can be proved.
But hopefully R.Deans is not beholden to anyone.However unless he brings with him selectors and talent scouts whom he trusts, he is going to be left with having to select teams from a player pool determined by others.
Of many issues 3 to think about
1. All players in the Syd. comp know first hand of favouritism… of how many players get the nod because of who they are.
2. The concept of coaching certifcates is sound but what if some of the coaching theories are flawed?
For a person to gain the level 3 cert he must become part of the system. Coaches privately state that if you want to advance you have to be a yes man. There is no room for alternatives. Maybe a generation of footballers is being taught incorrectly.
3. The concept of academies is also sound but what if they are just promoting mediocrity and more of the same? Again many Syd.players regard the selection process for the academies as a joke.
Consider the scenario of a junior who is selected in rep sides or a young grade player both of whom earned their spots based on their lineage. (we all know egs of this). This player is offerred an academy contract. He suffers an injury.Surgery and rehab is paid for by the Rugby Union.The player turns out to be a bum but who in the heirarchy would have the guts to say we got it wrong even though we spent all of this money on him? The selection of that player is covered up or even advanced because otherwise it would reflect poorly on the decision makers.
Who are the selectors/officials running these academies?How are they accountable for the $$ they spend and $$ which are spent on them? None of them would be prepared to challenge a system which has provided them with comfortable full time jobs doing something they love.
Deans needs to somehow get below the surface. He may be a great coach but he will only get to see what others allow him to see.
Billy said | January 15th 2008 @ 1:30pm | Report comment
If there is be a national club competition set up for 2009, ground requirements should be a major criteria.
Clubs must play on an rugby pitch not a cricket oval. Ooops, Randwick and Sydney Uni will miss out - what a shame…
Andrew Logan said | January 15th 2008 @ 1:34pm | Report comment
Greg,
I don’t feel that I am contradictory to the spirit of my previous article. What I would say is that in my first article I simply argued that money wasn’t the only reason, thereby making it the major reason, but not the sole reason. This time I simply set out to emphasise that the economics alone don’t stack up, so when you add in the other factors mentioned here by me and others - RUPA, egos, etc etc - the ARC was just unsustainable in its present form. So why keep lamenting its passing?
My take on things is not intended to be in any way an attack on Wayne Smith. I have read his articles for many years and often felt that he gave a welcome counterpoint to the Growdens etc of the world. However, I felt that in this case, he laid the blame for the demise of the ARC at the feet of the ARU and a cartel of powerful clubs, and ignored the fact that the economics just don’t stack up.
Are Wayne and I close philosophically regarding the need for a third tier? It is presumptuous to assume anything since I have never met Wayne, nor he me, but I think we would agree on many points. Again though, a potential rationalisation of the Brisbane teams fundamentally changes the structure of the tournament, and if this sort of radical surgery is required then perhaps the decision to start again isn’t such a bad thing?
I stand by my view that the ARC is an overly expensive way of unearthing just a handful of new players, and would also say that it is an overly expensive way of giving players from S14 squads game time. If the players were sent back to their clubs when not selected in a match day 22 (as appears likely to happen next year), then I feel certain that the standard of club rugby would be commensurate with the ARC level anyway. We often forget in this debate that there are a number of players playing club rugby who have played at an elite level, and who could teach the Kieran Longbottoms of the world a thing or two, but who wouldn’t play in the ARC because of work commitments etc. It is incorrect to assume that say, the starting props in the ARC teams are all better than their club counterparts. Younger certainly, with unrealised potential perhaps, and with lives uncomplicated by careers and families, but not necessarily better.
As far as the selection of clubs goes - you are right. It is a minefield and none of us will get 100% of what we want. There will be pain involved and there will be good rugby people who will end up disillusioned with the outcomes. That is certain.
What would I do if I were John O’Neill? I think the route which offers the greatest benefit for the greatest number, and the least pain, is to have a two-tier semi-professional competition, sitting above Suburban Rugby in both Sydney and Brisbane which supports a national comp and which has promotion available to the upper tier. So the national comp starts with say 4 Sydney clubs, 3 Brisbane clubs, Melbourne, Perth, and ACT. That is 10 teams which is quite manageable. Underneath this, the remaining clubs play locally in the tier 2 comp, for the right to be admitted to the national tier 1. Admission to tier 1 relies on a series of criteria over and above on-field results such as levels of sponsorship, junior numbers, home ground standards etc. This provides an incentive for weaker clubs to aspire to the upper level and grow themselves to a point where they can succeed there. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the national comp ended up having 16 or 18 teams around the country playing a full season perhaps even in two pools or similar? Just because we start with 10, doesn’t mean we are forever limited to that number.
Are there problems with this approach? Of course. No doubt someone will reply to this post with a laundry list of reasons why it won’t work. But that laundry list will exist for every idea - none of them are perfect. It is just a matter of picking the idea which has the greatest benefit for the greatest number.
Finally, is it better to have something (2007 ARC) rather than nothing (2008 ARC)? If it endangers the financial health of the union, exposes it to unnecessary risk, and devalues the contribution of the grassroots - I’d have to say that I’d prefer nothing. At least in the short term.
Cheers…
Lindsay said | January 15th 2008 @ 1:47pm | Report comment
As a first time contributor here it’s great to see that there is broad agreement amongst everyone for the need for a club-based third tier with limited exposure for the ARU as the only possible workable option. I’ve put my mind to it to come up with a possible third-tier structure that takes into account all of the previous contributions.
The main differences from those already proposed is:
-Two premium competitions in Sydney AND Brisbane made up of the top, say, four teams from the previous year’s club competition (plus Canberra for the Sydney Competiiton) to keep transport costs minimal (qualifying for the following year works in soccer where teams qualify for elite competitions in the following year and is necessary to ensure time to gather sponsorship etc).
-A team from Melbourne made up of selected players from non-premium (for want of a better term) Sydney teams on short term contracts (as Spiro suggests) training and living in Sydney but playing in Melbourne (with an option to continue playing in Melbourne in subsequest years even if their club teams qualify for the premium competition). Indeed this would be necessary to stop all the top players exclusively wanting to play for the top clubs.
-Similarly a Gold Coast team play in the Brisbane competition (I suspect there already is one in which case maybe Townsville/Cairns).
-Perth to play in either competition.
-The top two teams play off in Semis against each other (top team gets a home semi) and a final (alternating each year between a neutral venue in Sydney and Brisbane as long as one team from that city qualifies for the final).
This conference style of competition is not unusual - the NFL (American Football - Gridiron) works on this basis. Indeed the final could be considered to be Australian Rugby’s Superbowl.
There are, indeed should be, some contribution to the competition from the ARU, but mainly limited to interstate travel, player fees in Melbourne/Gold Coast/FNQ and promotion. Ideally this would be limited to the 5% ‘training and development budget’ Andrew refers to but decreasing over time as the competiion establishes itself, sponsorship increases and it’s sold to the highest cable bidder so that no one can see it (oops, sorry - another pet rant).
Greg Russell said | January 15th 2008 @ 2:17pm | Report comment
Andrew,
Thanks for your response.
“So the national comp starts with say 4 Sydney clubs, 3 Brisbane clubs, Melbourne, Perth, and ACT. That is 10 teams which is quite manageable.”
This is what I too have always imagined.
I only foresee problems with some of your ancilliary suggestions:
1. The “second-division” competition (which would actually be “tier 4″). I can’t see how such a competition could be economically viable - where is the money going to come from to fly amateur teams around on a weekly basis? But if there is to be promotion and relegation, all teams must have a shot at it, so the second-division competition must be national.
2. Promotion and relegation. Aspirationally this would be great, as you say. And indeed, promotion and relegation is fantastic in European soccer leagues. But otherwise it has only rarely worked. It is not used in the major American sports. In Australian sport it is not used in any of the major codes (NRL, AFL, basketball, cricket), and I can’t think of an instance where it has worked in Australia. The problem is the huge gap between the haves and the have-nots, the semi-professional and the amateur. Even NZ rugby has finally given up on it, after many years of having a promotion-relegation challenge, where the last team in the top division, even after losing every single match, would always thrash the champion second division side. Promotion and relegation really only works in European soccer because (1) the leagues are much larger (a promoted team going into a division of 18 or 20 teams is a much more viable proposition than going into a league of 8 or 10 teams), (2) there is a gradation in professionalism over many divisions, as opposed to an on-off jump between just two divisions), and (3) soccer is an inherently more even game, where the underdog has much more of a fighting chance than in rugby.
But hey, we could always give promotion and relegation a go, as you describe.
sheek said | January 15th 2008 @ 2:46pm | Report comment
Swifty,
If a national comp were brought about through the strength of the clubs (survival of the fittest/cleverest, etc), would it be in Australian Rugby’s interests, if two of those clubs were Sydney University & Qld University?
I think not, but then again it continues to surprise that there are still plenty of people who support might this notion.
Andrew,
On another point, while we live & work in a democracy, we’re inclined to expect our sporting institutions to operate within a socialist structure. In the greatest advocate of democracy in the world - the USA - some years ago the Baseball commissioners explained it was incumbent on their charter to ensure that all 30 franchises survived in perpetuity, for reasons of history, tradition, tribalism, context, etc. Or words along those lines.
cosmos forever said | January 15th 2008 @ 3:17pm | Report comment
Lindsay - just one problem with your plan - when the team from the ACT consistently beats the big clubs in Sydney, they’ll use their might to chuck them out of the competition…
Which is a humorous (and accurate) way of highlighting that the only problem with a competition based on relegation is the two-faced backdowns when the supposed power-houses start losing (and can’t even make the grade if they haven’t got sufficient grounds and junior development…).
Andrew Logan said | January 15th 2008 @ 3:26pm | Report comment
It’s a good point Sheek and I’d agree that all clubs must survive for the exact reasons you cite. However, they can’t all start out equal, hence my idea of a 2 tiered comp where the less strong clubs are gradually brought through to the top tier.
Lindsay said | January 15th 2008 @ 3:27pm | Report comment
Cosmos - I don’t necessarily think that will happen. Canberra weren’t exactly world beaters in the ARC last year and there would be a similar number of premium teams Australia-wide and a similar number of (or hopefully more) quality players to distribute (ie return) to their clubs for the premium competition. If any team should dominate it would be your Melbourne/FNQ teams that get the best of the rest, although with less time to train and gel into combinations it should even things out.
Your comment about the supposed power-houses not making the grade is fair, though if they’re not good enough to make the top 4 or 5 or whatever it is I don’t think the other supposed power-houses would be very sympathetic.
sheek said | January 15th 2008 @ 3:30pm | Report comment
Greg Russell,
I beg to differ I don’t have a solution. I think it’s okay to use the word ‘vision’ again, after John Ribot destroyed it with Superleague! Please see my ‘vision’ below.
Andrew Logan,
You suggest for a national comp - 4 Sydney clubs, 3 Brisbane clubs & one each from Canberra, Perth & Melbourne (total 10), is precisely why the ARC selected composite ‘greenfield’ teams in Sydney & Brisbane, in the first place.
You need the wisdom & wit of Solomon to pick 4 Sydney clubs from 12; & 3 Brisbane clubs from 10, without offending those who miss out. And the strategic & tactical acumen of Sun Tzu to prevent open warfare breaking out.
Moving onto my vision. Andrew asked the rhetorical question, “What he do if he were John O’Neill? I think the route that offers the greatest benefit for the greatest, & the least pain,…..”
Well, here it is:
Tier 1 - Apex of pyramid. Wallabies, Tri-Nations, international rugby. Totally professional.
Tier 2 - Super 14 or equivalent. Totally professional.
Tier 3 - National comp, preferably PROVINCIAL. Semi-professional.
Tier 4 - Premier Rugby clubs in Sydney, Brisbane, Canberra, Perth, Melbourne, Adelaide. Perhaps amateur?
Tier 5 - Very broad base of pyramid. Subbies, country, high schools & juniors, etc. Definitely amateur.
Why a national PROVINCIAL comp? The states already exist. Also, very critically, tier 3 ensures tier 4. All the Premier Rugby clubs exist in toto. No need for exclusion, amalgamation, promotion , relegation, jealousy & war. Also, down the track, tiers 2 & 3 might possibly merge anyway.
Each tier is a critical building block in the pyramid structure. The role of the premier rugby clubs must be defined - you can’t play for your province, super team or Wallabies without coming through a premier rugby club.
Random thoughts.
History & tradition all have to start somewhere. This is less of a problem than deciding on the correct structures. Marketing gurus are very good at getting us to buy something we didn’t think we wanted or needed. So once Australian rugby decides what it wants, then go out & sell it.
Promotion & relegation (national comp) can work if rugby is confined on the east coast. But if you want to nationalise the game, then the size of the country won’t allow promotion & relegation.
Reducing states into smaller provinces can work. For example, North Qld based out of Townsville or Cairns; Eastern Australia (Northern NSW) based out of Newcastle or Gosford. You could even divide Sydney into 2 provinces. South Harbour & south-west suburbs remains NSW; North Harbour & north-west suburbs becomes New England.
Many of you probably still don’t realise this has already happened with our rugby, with Southern NSW country clubs joining up with the ACT.
Peter L said | January 15th 2008 @ 4:03pm | Report comment
Sheek - what you have outlined is largely the situation in NZ, albeit on a smaller physical scale, and it somehow works OK.
Local comps feed into area rep teams with in turn feed into provinncial rep teams in essentially two divisions with the 2nd div being largely amateur and the 1st dvi being largely professional. So, for instance, the clubs in North Otago fill the player ranks fo the North Otago Team, which in turn feed players into the Otago (1st Div) NPC team. Players in the West Southland comp feed into the West Southland rep team which feeds into Southland team. The Provincial sides then play the national comp, and it largely through these teams that the S14 and All Black players are selected.
The nice thing about this structure is that it gives direction to a pinnacle, and allows acceclerated development of promising players, who can be noticed at club level and worked through the rep sides from an early age, with mature, experienced guidance and mentorship along the way.
Look, listen to us Kiwi’s on this - we lasted nearly 2 hours longer in the RWC than you guys did!
AndyS said | January 15th 2008 @ 6:35pm | Report comment
It’s a big topic and, much as I’d enjoy the discussion, I sadly haven’t the time. Limiting myself to one point:
Everyone agrees that poor support was a significant problem for the MARC (the “no tribalism” thing). So, for all those with allegiances to various clubs, will you be getting behind the teams that are in the 3rd tier comp if your team doesn’t make it or gets relegated? If so, what will it do for the clubs if everyone deserts to the selected clubs (supporters and players alike)? If instead you expect the current tribalisms to stand, does that mean you’re expecting attendences reflective of club games?
Yikes said | January 15th 2008 @ 7:55pm | Report comment
Where to begin? Andrew, as eloquent and well-written as your article is, it seems you have been reading too many economics textbooks and not enough history text books…! As a card-carrying member of the so-called “pro-ARC-at-any-cost lobby”, let me respond.
Firstly, let’s tackle the financial issues.
The ARC lost money. As was expected. It lost 2 million more than expected. This is not good. Andrew, you are right in saying that a 4.7 million loss is unsustainable. Where you start going wrong is when you say: “If there is no guarantee that the enterprise will ever be profitable, then there is no reason why any organisation should invest money in it.”
What rubbish. Firstly, I reject your premise. How can anyone *guarantee* that an enterprise will be profitable? Otherwise you and I would be billionaires. That’s the whole point of business - risk vs reward. There is nothing except your say-so that says ARC would never have been profitable in the long run. Especially with the News Ltd deal expiring and the ARU currently being the only SANZAR partner without a sale-able domestic comp. Secondly, there are plenty of reasons why an organisation might invest money in an exercise that doesn’t, in and of itself, turn a profit.
For starters, player development. Andrew, I give to you exhibit A: the Pura Cup. If that turns a profit I’ll eat my hat. But Cricket Australia continue with it because they have enough money, and they NEED its development benefits. I ask you - why is it that the Wallabies internationally and the Aussie S14 provinces have generally performed lower than expectations over the past few years? I submit it might have partially to do with the superior 3rd tier benefits that the ANZ and Currie Cups provide their respective nations. They always seem to have another brilliant player on the horizon. Take a good hard look at who we took to the World Cup…
In a later post, you claimed: “If the players were sent back to their clubs when not selected in a match day 22 (as appears likely to happen next year), then I feel certain that the standard of club rugby would be commensurate with the ARC level anyway”. This is just flat wrong, on two counts: 1) It already happens - academy and uninjured non-23-man-squad players DO play club rugby and have for years (prove otherwise, with names), and 2) the players disagree with you. I read that in a post-season survey, players indicated that the standard of ARC was well and truly above club rugby.
As posited by Greg, the ARC benefited the S14 players in desperate need for high quality week in week out rugby, beyond what club rugby can provide. Last year I watched Kurtley Beale play for Norths against Penrith at NSO late in the season. It was an embarrassment.
The financial slant you provide in your article (especially the closing paragraphs) assumes that the ONLY financial benefits from ARC come from the competition itself. This is narrow-minded. If it can help improve the standard of Australian rugby across the board and keep the Wallabies winning, that has tremendous financial benefits for Australian rugby. The true financial impact of the deathly Aus vs SA kickfest debacle at Telstra Stadium a couple of years ago cannot be overestimated. Its impact is still being felt in poor ticket sales to this day. The reverse would be equally true.
It is also in the best interests of rugby (financially) to provide player development pathways to all players in all regions of Australia, and provide avenues for grassroots supporters to contribute to rugby. ARC provided the framework for that - which stands in direct comparison with your proposal of a club competition which does not provide a pathway to the top for all players in all regions. None of the top 4 Sydney club sides are from the west of Sydney. How can we give these people no club to support? How many young players are going to see no pathway to the top? I am a player in Merrylands. My path the the top is through Randwick, Uni, Eastwood or Manly? Excuse me?
Secondly, let’s look at the financial position of the ARU in the past couple of years, and for the longer term. What has been the biggest cash cost to the ARU in the past 3 years? I’ll give you a hint, it ain’t ARC. How about moving the Bledisloe away from Sydney? For a couple of years, the Bledisloe has been played at a 50,000 stadium instead of an 80,000 stadium. That’s 30,000 seats at $100 a pop. There’s 3,000,000 in one night. Almost pays for an ARC. While I’m exaggerating the amounts, it was a significant cost. Why was it done? Well, for starters I imagine the pathetic performance of the Reds meant a significant investment had to be made in rugby to keep it alive and relevant in Queensland.
This won’t be an issue in 2008 and beyond. In fact in 2008 we have two Bledisloe games (for the first year since 1998!). This, added to 8 million from RWC, 3 million from the proposed Hong Kong game, combined with cost saving measures to ARC - smaller grounds, traveling on game day, lower player payments - we can see ARC would hardly have put the ARU out of business in year 2. Now we’re starting to come around to the Wayne Smith position that to kill the ARC *before* the wholesale review of HPU systems early in 2008 was, above all, a little suspicious.
Thirdly, your proposal of a 2 tier promotion and relegation system beggars belief. You write: “No doubt someone will reply to this post with a laundry list of reasons why it won’t work.” Let me provide you with a couple.
1. Somehow, an 8 team national comp (ARC) with the major costs of travel and accommodation was financially unsustainable, but you call 10 teams gallivanting around Australia “quite manageable”. For how many rounds? ARC was too expensive at 8 rounds! You seem to have this comp going on all season? Who is going to pay for that!? Or if it doesn’t go on all season, and there is the usual premiership comp for most of the year, what happens to the good players in the non-national clubs? Do they just not play in a national comp? What point is there to that?
2. As Greg has pointed out, history shows that promotion and relegation, unless part of a massive overall structure (like Subbies in NSW or Euro soccer) does not work. Do you know anything about rugby in NSW in the late 80s and early 90s?? When the main comp was split into 2 divisions and most of the second tier clubs died a slow death until they were forced to merge with Subbies? Why? Because all the best players moved to the top tier, and the gap was too great! Or how about when Hornsby (first) challenged Drummoyne (last place) and were annihilated 56-0 in 1993? Why are we going back 15 years?
3. Who would play for a second tier Premiership club? I have no idea. All the top/aspirational/state fringe players would move to the National clubs before you can say jump. (And if they didn’t you’d have a problem because your National comp would now not have the best playing against the best). So this leaves who exactly to play in tier 2? If you are an amateur player, you play Subbies. By pushing some clubs up to national exposure at the expense of other clubs, you will decimate the others. The least pain, you call this?
4. You write “Admission to tier 1 relies on a series of criteria over and above on-field results such as levels of sponsorship, junior numbers.” Well, there goes Sydney Uni out of a National Comp! They don’t have juniors! (Unless you count Canterbury).
In closing, your last statement makes *me* shake my head. You wrote: “But that laundry list will exist for every idea - none of them are perfect. It is just a matter of picking the idea which has the greatest benefit for the greatest number.”
Was that idea not ARC?
After YEARS of argument and hand-wringing over a national comp, finally someone got off their arse and did something about it. Just about the only people that opposed ARC post-Cap Gemini were Greg Growden, some Sydney clubs, and Alan Jones (and it appears now after the fact John O’Neill and Matt Carroll, maybe because they didn’t think of it, or because the clubs wield too much political power at board level).
If only they had listened to your advice, and realised “it is a minefield and none of us will get 100% of what we want. There will be pain involved and there will be good rugby people who will end up disillusioned with the outcomes”. Once the decision was made, we should have all bandied together to make it work. Instead, it was white-anted by those putting self-interest ahead of rugby’s interest.
In that respect, ARC’s demise had nothing to do with finances.
Nobody said | January 15th 2008 @ 8:12pm | Report comment
Bravo, “Yikes”
I’d be looking at the finances of 5 of the ARC teams. VIC was always going to run at a loss, but WA (who presumably had the biggest travel/accommodation costs of all the teams) and ACT managed to run in the black. Why couldn’t the NSW and QLD teams?
Something smell?
Kenneth Mortimer said | January 15th 2008 @ 8:21pm | Report comment
I believe most of the contributions ignore the fact that the ARU ignored what outcomes the ARU was seeking and what Australian rugby needed. The Sydney and Brisbane clubs alone are inadequate to provide Australian Rugby with the base that it needs to be consistently sustainable in providing the development platform that the S14 franchises and Wallabies need.
Australia has been extremely fortunate in the past at throwing up extraodinary heroes with extreme talent as represented by the Ella brothers, Eales, Poidevin and many others whose names are legendary. However the world has changed and countries with critical mass such as England, Wales, France, Scotland and Ireland are in a market that enables professionals to be paid remuneration that is intensely attractive even to players in South Africa and New Zealand where there is great player depth. The ARU has been lazy and lacking innovation in seeking a solution that will provide it with a vibrant player development platform that will return Australian Rugby to a permanet place of fame and achievement not intermittent star bursts.
Andrew Logan said | January 15th 2008 @ 8:39pm | Report comment
Yikes - we meet again. Happy New Year.
First allow me to suggest that you submit some articles to The Roar as you are writing more than most columnists.
You’ve written a massive amount and there are lots of small points that I take issue with, but let me just stick to a few big ones.
1. The Pura Cup - I have discussed this in a previous post with Greg Russell, but suffice to say I agree that it doesn’t turn a profit and that it is a very good development ground for Australian cricketers. The difference between this and the ARC is that cricket has a massive TV income since it is the number one summer sport with daylight second. This means that CA can afford to run the Pura Cup. The ARU does not have the luxury of the sort of income that CA commands.
2. I agree with the first part of your comment that “it is also in the best interests of rugby (financially) to provide player development pathways to all players in all regions of Australia, and provide avenues for grassroots supporters to contribute to rugby. ARC provided the framework for that - which stands in direct comparison with your proposal of a club competition which does not provide a pathway to the top for all players in all regions.”. Where you go wrong is in assuming that I am pushing for “Randwick, Uni, Eastwood or Manly” to be those clubs. I didn’t mention any clubs at all - and as you acknowledged, the criteria need be wide ranging enough to not assume that the top 4 clubs automatically go though. Certainly junior development would be an issue for Sydney Uni, ground standards may be a problem for Randwick and sponsorship could be a problem for Parramatta - everyone would have a cross to bear and the ARU must make a decision which benefits everyone. I don’t think anyone wants a return to the old days where rugby was ensconced in the eastern suburbs. I certainly don’t.
3. Re “Somehow, an 8 team national comp (ARC) with the major costs of travel and accommodation was financially unsustainable, but you call 10 teams gallivanting around Australia “quite manageable”” - this is because in a club comp, the clubs would pick up the bill via sponsorships etc. The ARU commitment would be a fraction of its commitment to the ARC which it essentially bankrolled lock stock and barrel.
As I’ve said before, you’re obviously passionate about it - that’s great. We are all rugby people after all.
Regards,
Andrew.
PS How are the Merrylands juniors going? I have a photo of your U9’s or something in my collection which was given to me by your club a few years ago for helping with some fundraising when the clubhouse burnt down.
3.
sheek said | January 15th 2008 @ 9:08pm | Report comment
Yikes,
You are far too timid, you need to come out of your shell more, & say what you really think!!!!!!!!!!
Some interesting points though. I should finish reading your email by the middle of next week, & will let you know my thoughts!!!!!
And as if I can talk!
Yikes said | January 15th 2008 @ 9:51pm | Report comment
Sorry all. But sometimes, when you’re passionate, you just have to get everything off your chest. I am so frustrated at rugby’s never-ending capacity to shoot itself in the foot. And people’s inability to see what I (of course!) think is so obvious!!
Andrew - on the biggies:
1. Agreed. My point was to show that an enterprise must not neccessarily turn a profit of its own accord if it is contributing to the bigger picture - directly responding to the points made in your article - not to compare the financial weight of CA and ARU, which are as you say are chalk and cheese. (But even then the cost of ARC must be a shadow of the Pura Cup considering it is played over a longer period - and 4 day matches! Think of the accommodation!).
2. I agree it would not be those clubs necessarily. But my point is you cannot pick ANY four clubs regardless of criteria and still provide buy in from all regions of Sydney - ie. give everyone everywhere a team to support and a logical pathway to the top.
3. The clubs as they are are stone motherless broke (as you know). Most could not afford to fly their team to Newcastle, let alone Perth. Do you really think, with limited TV coverage, that enough sponsors could really be found in year 1 to pay for this? I honestly can’t believe you do. You certainly won’t be relying on gate…
Plus, could you explain whether your proposed national comp/2 tiers would replace the current club premierships ie run March to Sept or just supplement it at the end of the season a la ARC.
Thanks for the continued privilege of discussing rugby!
westy said | January 15th 2008 @ 11:10pm | Report comment
In westy sydney land kids play soccer and league. YOU go to a state school and you have any rugby talent you avoid the dismal junior district competition. It really is that bad. You try desperately to get into junior rugby league development squads to get real training and skills at anywhere near an apppropriate level. Just ask the islander boys in Penrith and Parramatta teams. Oh I forgot they live in western sydney so are automatically lost to rugby. My god did not anyone bother to watch Inu or Hayne. This is a demand not a request give Western Sydney as a region its own team in any professional third club tier even if subsidised (just like the Swans were in SYdney) before deciding on any other Sydney clubs. YOU either want us or you do not. It is that simple. Play Eastwood instead of Western Sydney the message is loud and clear.I do not have an inferiority complex about where I live just mindful of over a century of platitudes about developing the game in my region and it has been abysmal.THe NSWRU or the ARU could not even insert clauses in player contracts to play a few club games for some western sydney clubs . Did Randwick really need them. Do you understand what impact their mere presence would have had. Given future demographics the failure to lock into Western Sydney will see the ARU having to import a lot more than a coach.
Gatesy said | January 16th 2008 @ 12:21am | Report comment
Sheek - you are right on the money!
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, because I have espoused my theory in a number of other threads on this website, done a dummy spit and said that I am finished with this debate (but noting that it has been revived with vigour) am completely convinced that the only way that a third tier competition can work is if it is based on State (ie provincial) lines.
Q: Why??
The answer is simple and it is staring us all in the face.
A: BRANDING
If you want a competition to flourish in our game, it must have tribalism. How does tribalism flourish? You must have a definable brand.
Yes, OK, clubs like Randwick, Norths, Eastern Suburbs, Gordon, Sunnybank, Brothers et al are definable, but they will never excite the passions of anyone outside their own tribe.
The only brand that we all recognise is the State Jersey/ logo.
Why is it so hard for people to understand that?
(Vested interests might be one explanation)
OK, so if vested interests is the problem, let’s look at that. Could any Sydney or Brisbane club put its hand on its heart and honestly contend that it has the financial horsepower to mount an entry into a National competiton? I would back the Canberra Vikings long before I would back Randwick or Easts or Norths in Sydney to be able to put up a viable contender! (… and I do know something about those clubs, having been on the Board of one of them in years gone by..)
And how do you decide which clubs should get the guernsey to be in the competition?..welll we probably already know the answer to that question…privilege, old school tie, cronyism, allicadoos etc etc.
I have seen a lot of very reasoned arguments in this particular thread, but not one has convinced me that my model (and Sheek’s) and no doubt others won’t work.
The money must lie with the State Unions, and if the smaller Unions would struggle, then surely ARU has a grant or subsidy system in place, somewhere! If not, where did all that money go after the 2003 World Cup? (I bet that starts a whole new debate, and no doubt Andrew Logan will know the answer….that’s not a cheap shot, Andrew, I did appreciate your initial synopsis…)
Why is it so hard to break with tradition? I read on this site that the State based system had something to do with the fact that the NSWRU once made a decision (a century ago) that players had to play for the District in which they were born! I’m still trying to figure that one out, given that we have been playing the game for 100 years and a few socio-economic changes have happened in our society in that time.
Given that most of the Sydney and Brisbane clubs are still largely amateur (in that they don’t really support their officials, financially), you can only surmise that those officials who plug the Club line are those with some sort of vested interest in their own very personal Rugby experience.
Are they really acting in their club’s best interests or their own?
Just because you’ ve always headed down to Coogee Oval, or North Sydney Oval, or Easts, or Chatswood Oval,. or Crosbie Park or Toowoong on a Saturday arvo and watched your team, and that your club has a culture that is older and more entrenched than the club next door, does that mean that your particular club has some automatic right to be a major participant in the inevitable growth of our game, at the expense of another club?
I don’t think so, and I’m sure most Rugby followers would agree.
The people who run the ARU are, by all accounts, experienced business people, who are, we are led to believe, people who can work through any financial model (this is so, if you believe what Andrew Logan wrote, almost eulogising them..) If that is so, surely my theorem is a very simple and short leap of logic and faith and a situation that should not take up too much of their very valuable time.
Please allow me to put a simple proposition regarding “Branding”.
In America, the home of capitalism, there are four major sports - Baseball, Football (gridiron), Basketball and Ice Hockey.
There is absolutely no conflict between these sports in terms of competing for the attention of the public, as most fans, in any given city, support a baseball team, a basketball team, a football team and (I assume, in most cities) an Ice Hockey team. Even Soccer at number 5 is no threat, so no conflict.
So, if you live, for example, in New York you pretty much know who you support and it is most likely the local footy team , baseball team, basketball team and ice hockey team.
Most avid sports fans would have all four shirts (jerseys) and all four caps and a bunch of other paraphenalia. The marketing is a no-brainer.
Many of them would have season tickets to see all or most of those four sports. Almost everyone living in that city would, as a minimum, watch their respective team on TV and take an interest in their results.
WHY?
Because there is no conflict ….there is only one team in town, they are not competing for the sponsorhip dollar or the fans loyalty, and they all have a definable BRAND!
The brand does not derive from some sort of neighbourhood mentality. That’s what happened a hundred years ago. The AFL has moved well past it, NRL is doing it and even the National Soccer League and the Basketball has moved past it, so why can’t Rugby?
Cricket certainly has no problem with it, though I concede that it is the Summer sport of choice for the vast majority of Australians and has no competition. But it is a shining example and a beacon that the ARU should certainly look at.
So, there, the model is plain for all to see (Cricket) and the need for branding is obvious, and the only brand that the majority could agree with is the State logo, so what’s the problem?
Gatesy
sheek said | January 16th 2008 @ 6:02am | Report comment
Gatesy/Yikes,
I understand. I get frustrated also with the to-ing & fro-ing over a national comp, & keep telling myself “I’m over it”.
But as the many passionate responses to Andrew’s original post suggest, it’s a very emotive issue.
BPM said | January 16th 2008 @ 9:13am | Report comment
I agree with Sheek, Yikes and co. I did attend a couple of ARC games and watched the remainder on ABC (2). I would definitely support a state based national comp.
I will not support a National Club Competition if my club (Eastwood) is not in it. Why would I suddenly change allegiance and support a team like Randwick or Easts?!?! No chance!!! I would expect the vast majority of rugby supporters across the country would have similar feelings.
Westy has a great point, for the good of rugby, there must be a team based in western Sydney, Parramatta probably being the most central position e.g. revive the Rams.
Reds Fan said | January 16th 2008 @ 11:14am | Report comment
Firstly I must say that I am loving all of this debate. One thing that people can not take away from rugby is the passion of its supporters. There have been a lot of good suggestions so far and I thought I would add my own thoughts.
1. Promotion and relegation will not work. If a national club comp was to go ahead the teams involved would require at least 18 months to prepare for it. Sponsorship, logistics, player movement etc all take time. Also teams that were relegated would suffer huge financial losses when the team went back to the lover division as most sponsors would have provisions if the teams were relegated. I also think that it would create a win at all cost culture that I don’t think develops the brand of rugby that most of us would want to watch.
2. Club loyalties run deep and a national club comp with only a few selected clubs would dive supporters away from the game. In Brisbane if Qld Uni was in the national comp supporters of Wests are not going to start supporting Uni. Their history is of rivalry for the past 100 or so years, these things take a long time to change. The ARC was developed to try and use these loyalties by providing the pathway from club to state team. Due to many factors this didn’t work.
3. The ARC is dead, time to move on. I thought the idea of the ARC was great. I saw a few weaknesses but I was happy to support it. It is now gone so we have to look at building the game in Australia. What ever idea they come up with lets get behind it. Like Andrew said before every idea will have its faults. The major faults will be ironed out over the first few seasons.
4. I think the idea of a provincial competition has merit. I would like to see all the states and territories with teams in an 8 team comp. I would be happy for the teams to use a different name eg Red Healers from Queensland so as not to confuse the public with the Super 14 teams (also good for extra merchandise and revenue raising) I also think that you would have to impose a draft so that the teams without a super 14 franchise have a chance. I doubt that the Wallabies would be available due to the structure of the season but if this is about player development then maybe the best of the rest would have long term benefits to Australian rugby. Each player could be ranked so each team can only pick so many players of each rank with the states with Super teams picking 15 from their squad’s first then opening the draft to states without Super teams. This would give the traditional teams an advantage but if marquee player nominated to play for other team (eg Croft and Ioane in ARC) then it would spread some talent wealth. I would like for the traditional states to only pick from their Super 14 squads or local comp so that there is some consistency in their development. The states with out Super teams should also pick a few players from their local comp to provide these players with a pathway. I know that Victoria has players who could play at this level and I saw a kid at the National Under 16 titles from Tasmania who could be a star in years to come. I can see quite a few flaws in this idea but I figure if I am going to have an opinion about other peoples ideas I should at least come up with an idea of my own.
5. TV coverage is a must for the competition. If sponsors are to be attracted to the teams and the competition then they need exposure. If Jim Beam cup games are on Foxtel then there must be a market for quality rugby.
cosmos forever said | January 16th 2008 @ 11:25am | Report comment
This may be a stupid idea but instead of trying to re-engineer a 100 years of history, why don’t they just run it as a colts competition based on the current S14 franchises.
Each Franchise has two teams, teams can have up to 5 established or ‘aged’ players.
No confusion for fans, no club fall-out (other than having to negotiate the release of players depending on timing) and a natural blend of player development for young guys and opportunity to impress for older blokes who haven’t quite made it through the traditional system but are stars in club rugby.
The Brumbies already have the Runners - they could also have the Bolters and there you go.
It would also get some of the blokes who are in endless training squads and not playing off the Playstation and onto the field!
AndyS said | January 16th 2008 @ 11:46am | Report comment
And if you keep following the logic for a state based model…
- If you limit the comp to states with a S14 team, then you aren’t widening the base at all. It merely gives the second tier S14 players a game and the gulf back to club rugby is not addressed. Need to widen the base…
- So, how about all a state level comp? Trouble is, the states with S14 teams have all the elite players and, if the Melbourne based team was such a huge drain on resources, what would the finances look like with players relocated to Tas, SA and the NT as well? Got to get those accomodation and travel costs down…
- So, you locate teams where there are sufficient players to feed them. Given the relative size of the club competitions that probably means a couple of teams from Q’ld, maybe three from NSW and…oh, oops!