- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
The board of the ARU has consigned one team, either the Western Force or the Melbourne Rebels, to the history books.
Doing so will either destroy Western Australia rugby, or Victorian rugby, and put back all the progress made during their short tenure.
There are some that point out that despite the failing of these two teams having not won a Super competition, the Super competition started in 1996. The Australian teams to win are Brumbies 2001 and 2004, Reds 2011 and Waratahs 2014.
It took the supposedly premier district of rugby 19 years to win their first title. This a team that represents the strong province, where the club scene was strongest, where the mainstay of players come from.
The Force are in their 11th year and the Rebels in their seventh year from inception where the start was from the ground up, something the Waratahs have not had to do.
What the ARU want out of this is a better financial return on the remaining teams, with stronger on-field performance by re-assigning the fifth team spread among the four remaining Franchises.
Are these myths or tangible outcomes? What is the financial outcome, what is the human impact on this decision and will the four franchises improve?
The financial impact according to the ARU is a savings of six million per year for the length of the current broadcast agreement in 2020, so given that is three years the 18 million is the total savings.
That’s less any costs associated with dissolution of a team. This is not in dispute. How-ever where else could have these savings been achieved without cutting a team?
The ARU reported a surplus of 3.7m after investing 4.8m in the Force. Super Rugby cost was 41m increased by 13.8m (including the Force extra funding). The saving of 6m is a 15 per cent reduction of costs against this part of the budget.
Corporate cost is 14.6m given the corresponding national unions of Ireland, Wales and New Zealand expenditure on corporate costs is around 10m there are significant savings of 4m that can be made per year without impacting spend on Super teams and grass roots growth.
That leaves 2m to find, against all the current Super squads players this represents 1,500 per year per player. Would RAPU look at that if it saved the careers of one team and management made the commitment to their expenditure savings?
The human impact directly affected by this decision are: management/ support staff, four coaching staff and 37 players for either team.
And let us not relegate to the backroom the financial hardship and emotional rollercoaster that the players, and as important wives/partners and children, will be subject to in the wash out.
The children that are integrated into schools, the wives that have careers, and the financial cost (houses) which will be associated with any move required by the ARU decision.
You can take the business high ground if you wish and state this is normal business, but having been through this the psychological damage it can do is huge.
It can lead to depression, loss of family life, even suicide, these are very real social issues which businesses are happy to ignore and rely on public infrastructure and support to pay.
Those under contract will have a team elsewhere, but in what capacity is unclear, and they are the supposedly lucky ones. At least they will be paid for a year while they reassess their options, what about all those unwanted?
What about those development players in their squad, unpaid not under contract but potentially lost to Australian rugby? Some say if they are good enough they will move and make it, this may be true. However many more would make with the right development and surely this is what having a team in Western Australia or Victoria meant.
The second supposed outcome is franchise improvement for the four remaining teams.
Picking a player from a dropped team means either increased cost or dropping a current contracted player.
Let us look at the four on the coaching team. As they are not contracted players to the ARU any team that picks them up will be doing so at a cost to them. Would you be willing to discard one of your current coaching team for each one of them? I daresay some would like to on current performance! But which franchise can afford to pay out their current coaching staff.
Now look at each team and those players, who would you drop from your team players, be it the Reds, Waratahs, Brumbies or Rebels/Force?
Who are you willing to discard from your team and take up a Western Force or Rebels player that will improve your on-field performance?
And why do I say discard? It may be that the ARU will pay the wages of these players for the year of their current contract, then they will not cost you money. But here is the catch22, as I previously implied.
Take these players on at no cost and use them on a ‘just in case’ basis covering injuries implies they are not good enough to be front-line players.
Therefore where is the on-field performance improvement that everyone states will occur.
However, if they are that good that you want them and in doing so they will improve your on-field performance, then they are replacing a current player who will no longer have game time. Would you keep him on or discard as they are a cost to your team?
Who would you discard and take in this scenario, who would confirm the hypothesis that four will indeed improve by taking from and discarding the fifth element being either the Western Force or the Rebels? Is improvement going to be real or a myth?
Join The Roar rugby editor Christy Doran, former Wallaby Matt Toomua and a cast of regular and special guests as they look at the biggest issues in the game on The Roar Rugby Podcast. If you’re looking for great odds on the next game check out Aussie bookmaker PlayUp. Chances are you’re about to lose. Set a deposit limit.