ARU fees will cause a mass exodus

The ARU need to understand that professional rugby is the cream, not the whole bottle. The clubs exist so that their members can play rugby themselves, not to be milked so that the privileged few can be paid mega bucks to do what the rest of us do for free. The levy on clubs to pay for the NRC caused a lot of resentment. Now this. The clubs and amateur players are Rugby. They are not a cash cow to be milked.

Ireland are no lightweights. They are the reigning 6 Nations Champions, having also won in 2009 and 2010. In between the side regenerated and are clearly on the way up with a young side still to reach it's full potential. Australia v Ireland matches have always been hard fought. They will be serious contenders at RWC 2015.

Ummmmmm I am not sure where you studied your accounting but the NRL 2013 Annual Report lists Administration expenses as roughly equal to the ARU despite having almost ten times the revenues at about AUD200million. http://www.e-brochures.com.au/nrl/annualreport2013/PDF/NRL-Annual-Report-2013.pdf The ARU has not got a leg to stand on.

Yes, im familiar with changes to the new governance model. The Arbib Cosgrove report was adopted relates almost entirely with structure of ARU. And not much about grassroots: - It deals with removing NSW power to veto the decisions made by other shareholders. - Gives more equitable shareholder voting rights in selecting board members, and special directives. - Grassroots got mentioned as a motherhood statement once in the long list of recommendations. Maybe twice. - It deals with governance model of ARU. Not Australian Rugby. It is definitely a measure that points in the right direction. But its no silver bullet. Its barely even a bullet. The reason league, afl, soccer don't need help from anyone is because its feed by grassroots. The the fate of international teams isn't critical for their sustainability. An international sport is a great benefit the code. It bècomes a serious problem if the only team that benefits is the Wallabies - it then becomes the noose that is tied around the codes neck.

NRL Needs $69M to run a competition of 3 times as many teams and double the revenue ($185M). The ARU runs a 6 team competition (Wallabies are a team in their own right) with $95M of revenue on $16M. So if you compare it to all it's competitors IN AUSTRALIA that's not the case. If you compare it to a dominant code in a country with a low cost of living and lower wages and compares favorably. I'm not the one ignoring or choosing comparisons. I'm looking at who the ARU has to compete with. They do not compete with the NZRU. They have never competed with them for anything in fact, despite the fact their flagship teams compete. They have always competed with the NRL though. Many would say it's the ARU's strongest competitor.

So it is a mystery why they need $16million to run their head office. If you compare the ARU to all it's competitors in Australia or the NZRU it performs poorly. high cost structure and low revenues. That is precisely the way to make a company or organisation bankrupt if something isn't done. Sweeping it under the carpt and ignoring it or choosing your comparisons will not solve things.

Rob, The ARU governance structure has changed. Previously it was dominated by the NSWRU and QRU however now it is evened out voting rights across the states. It's hard to compare to NRL though, as the club season only provides a regular season. Rugby is unique in that it provides a regular international season. This is what helps the game's reach it must be remembered so cannot only be looked upon as a liability. Look at the league, it treats the international game with disdain, and has an international footprint across 4 countries. And even then it's only across sections of those countries. Yes the NRL is strong, but that's the extent of it. If the NRL ever found itself in financial trouble there would be nobody to help.

For a code, top heavy means the sports rely on the fortunes of a small number of top teams. For Rugby it is one. The Wallabies. For league and modern Oz soccer, there is no reliance on either Roos, Maroons, Blues or any one team to do well. You could wipe out teams and the code thrives. Elitist is represented by exclusivity: - From policy standpoint, power and priority is determined by the elite few, as opposed to representative form of governance. ARU has been v guilty of this - From community standpoint, it is in/accessibility. Getting better, I believe

Yes I have been harping on about the Mums for ages and how they often have the last say ,plus who hasnt seen the huge contribution from Rugby Mums the world over at grass roots level ? And yes that nice Mr Eales might be the go for shiny role models .As is Maccaw in NZ .

But again that's perception. Per dollar of revenue, the supposedly less top heavy and elitist NRL actually is more top heavy.

Was just thinking along those lines myself,as regards more high profile players putting in regular appearances and the like to generate some of that ''I wannabe like player X someday !'' enthusiasm [ anyone who met one of their idols as a kid knows what I mean ,Colin Meads for me ! oh and Sir Edmund Hillary but thats where I got a little confused ...] Value adding is where its at so clinics and gear too ?

New tax is perception Elitist / top-heavy is not

And again, it's perception. This new "tax" brings rugby in line with the costs of other codes. It's not a new "tax". Looking at the figures it seems more like the removal of a subsidy. I think the goal should certainly be to eliminate fees completely if possible. Running on repeated losses is not the time that's possible though.

Ah ok I see. SmartAr5e fans. On this point I also beg to differ. They are one of the key assets. - The greatest institutions are formed by fire and passion. - Oz Rugby as a pro game is still a baby compared to the other codes. But run by grownups. - So it will take time, and will be bumpy imo, criticism and writers - like players - come in different sizes, shapes, quality. The elitist / top heavy criticism is a valid one: - It is a weak point for the ARU, and will be used against them. - This new 'tax' is a good example

Rob I actually meant that rugby's fans are generally more intelligent and will question everything which breeds a negative attitude towards the game. How often to you see NRL and AFL fans scrutinize membership figures? The Reds claim to have 7,000 more fans than their average attendance and people think this cannot be possible whilst some AFL teams have a membership base double their attendance. AFL fans do not question though. I certainly agree they should not be immune to criticism. I'd just like to see the right criticism, as this is constructive and will keep them accountable. Now no matter what is done, it's criticized. It loses it's impact after a while and being criticized is no longer associated with poor decisions, because all are widely criticized. Look at Greg Growden. He runs articles blaming the ARU for their financial losses, then runs articles blaming the ARU for making staff redundant and offering staff members less pay. What on earth can they do? Losing money and that's wrong, so they try and cut costs and that's apparently wrong too.

Train, I dont think the general public consider Rugby as elitist because of complaints about the ARU: - Most people in Australia, imo, dont even know ARU exists. - I believe many people consider Rugby elitist because of its elitist history - Others consider it elitist because it is not readily accessible I understand the general economics of the new measure: - However, it is positioned as a new tax to the grassroots by those who are not agreeable to it. - And ARU are falling into the trap. I disagree regarding Rugby's downfall. I have great faith in the game: - The administrators are doing a better job than before, especially with less resources. - But they are making mistakes, and are not beyond criticism (or praise) - Just like coaches and players. Administrators are subject to scrutiny. Only more so. The biggest impediment of the game will the lack of balance in its portfolio. It is too top heavy, and it correction lacks vision. The 'dumb fans' who want more of the game is one of its key assets. Not its downfall.

Ok, fair enough. But your commence is still not very accurate. the 2013 financials for the NZRU are: Income - $117M Expenditure Game Development - $14.2M Provincial Union Grants - $9M Representative Teams $31.5M Competitions - $51M Governance and Financial - $8.4M Total - $114M Now compare that to the ARU Income - $95M AUD ($114NZD for reference) Expenditure Commissioning & Servicing Costs - $3M Match Day Operations - $17M Marketing & Media - $4.5M Wallabies Team Costs - $5M National 7s team costs - $1.6M Super Rugby Team Costs - $3.2M Super Rugby Grants - $21M (Close to $5M of this is community rugby distribution) Player Payments & RUPA Costs - $12M (So that's basically all the Wallaby top ups and match payments - FYI The French Top 14 runs on a $15M Salary Cap per team) High Performance & National Teams - $6.7M SANZAR Office - $800k Community Rugby - $5M Corporate (Assumed rent, admin salaries, JEM, etc.) - $16.9M Now the NZRU Gives $9M to provincial unions. The ARU spends $10M on community rugby. Half itself and half spread via the State Unions. I personally don't think the ARU needs to explain why the Head Office costs are double the NZRU. For many in NZ, the NZRU would be the employer of choice, due to rugby's place in the chain. You'd need less benefits and salary to take a job there. The ARU being 4th doesn't have that luxury and needs to do more to entice top candidates for starters. Then there is the additional cost of living in Australia which surely would have an impact. You say that St Leonards was too expensive. Where exactly should they be located with low rent? Parramatta? Cabramatta? That should help them with sponsor and media dealings. Sydney is the rugby center, but also has the most expensive rent in Australia. (I make this comment as a Queenslander living in Melbourne who has compared rental costs across the East coast and my companies costs who are based in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne). Then as I noted before, on a per $ of revenue basis, the ARU's operations are far more efficient than the NRL's. To me it appears that's the cost of professional sport. It's no use comparing to NZ. The ARU doesn't compete with the NZRU. It competes with the AFL and NRL.

1. The CEO is earning half of his predecessor. The Chairman earns $20k per year. 2. The CEO has culled a large quantity of staff since he began his tenure. 3. I don't know so cannot comment. Considering they held the 2014 Super Rugby launch at a Surf Club I'd be less sure of this. 4. They are actually in the process of moving from St Leonards to Moore Park to share some of the Waratahs facilities I understand, in order to save money. 5. There has actually already been a recent change in governance. The NSWRU and QRU gave up some voting rights and I believe all states now have an equal vote. Now don't get me wrong, the ARU has issues and has mismanaged a number of things. But your comment is so far removed from the actual reality it's not funny. That once applied, but when you ignore all the media releases and articles that tell you the opposite, it's easy to keep that view. I think the only issue the ARU has with paying people handsomely in the context of their role and the market, is that they have minimal drawing power, and likely need to pay "overs" to attract good people.

Many people in Australia consider rugby as elitist due to everybody involved constantly bad mouthing the ARU saying they are despite the facts not really supporting that. Up until 2015 the ARU insured players on a per team basis, allowing players to just come and initially play and pay no fees. As far as I'm aware having played U/19's League and senior AFL in the last decade, no other code does that. Rugby's biggest downfall will be the intelligence of it's fans that look for holes in everything and point out the flaws of any administration.

The State Unions get around $6M from the ARU too. They cover player wages and then give a community rugby grant. Then issue is that the Super Rugby teams and associated unions are not making money. Once again, your comments about park NRL clubs has nothing to do with the NRL. The NRL gives teams a grant, which basically covers the salary cap. The same as rugby. The difference is these teams make enough to support local teams more (because there is benefit to them) and as you note, the local teams are better at securing sponsorship.