Australian rugby’s focus in the future will be centered on female participation, western Sydney and the eradication of the ‘toff’ tag that has hounded the sport.
Once again I was saddened to see the ARU’s new television broadcast deal will not aid club rugby, and some of Australia’s oldest and most celebrated clubs in New South Wales and Queensland.
Of course many people see club rugby as a waste of time, and in the past a drain on resources. The current position of the ARU is somewhere in the middle, with an acknowledgement of its importance in creating Super Rugby and Wallaby players, but also as an entity that reflects the image of the toff, private-school player, and one that does not need direct financial backing.
It is clear that a greater emphasis is on rugby sevens at the moment, with its inclusion in the Olympics. No doubt other political pressures are on the ARU to make sure that both the men’s and women’s sevens teams are ready and primed to go in Rio. Sevens is a great concept and it should be supported, but the neglect of club rugby will have far-reaching effects over the long term.
Rugby clubs and their offshoots are often the first place people go for an introduction to the game. That is the role of club rugby, not specifically to breed Wallabies or sevens players, but to provide an avenue for women and men of all ages to join like-minded people who love to play, watch, manage and coach rugby union. Players, administrators, player managers, and quality coaches have all come out of club rugby, it is where many people go for their fix.
Part of the ARU’s vision is to gain back some of the ground lost to rugby league and other sports in western Sydney. However, without a sustained effort in aiding the two western Sydney Shute Shield clubs, this race may already have been run.
It’s clear that Shute Shield clubs have wasted ARU granted money in the past. The ARU itself cannot sit by and say it hasn’t wasted the hard earned money of many players and spectators. I don’t believe direct funding to Shute Shield clubs is the answer, as Bill Pulver says. Although, you can imagine they are slightly peeved that they will see no new allocations as a result.
It is up to the clubs themselves to maintain their own financial viability. However, the exact challenges that face the ARU are also those faced by clubs every day. The growth of rugby league, particularly in the west of Sydney, has been a huge drain on many clubs in attracting players, sponsors and then crowds to consume their content. The Shute Shield television deal has helped everyone’s cause, but this has come at a large cost to the clubs.
I am happy that the ARU seems to have a plan and they are going after executing that plan. Most of it will be worthwhile and many people will benefit, but a whole section of the rugby family is being neglected.
I have previously brought up the idea of funding clubs through grants of equipment requirements. I only bring it up as a possibility, not as the solution. Say club rugby has a total allocation each year and when required, a club will make an application to receive something such as playing equipment. How this is maintained for fairness is another story, and I can see old-school club people throwing barbs right now. At least with something like this, there would seem to be, even if largely superficial, some support for club rugby from the ARU.
The political skirmishing and abrasiveness of many club rugby boards and chiefs has put the ARU offside. Everyone isn’t there to agree on everything all the time, but it doesn’t seem like the ARU or some of the club heads want to budge an inch and get on with each other. Part of the reason Pulver is reluctant to fund club rugby is because clubs can seem very insular, and only interested in self promotion.
Old club hatreds are what create quality rugby rivalries, but they also create tension and mistrust when they are taken off the field and played out in the boardroom. You can’t begrudge Pulver for denying the current boards of Shute Shield clubs direct funding. Similarly, it is hard to know why some funding arrangement hasn’t been reached where clubs could benefit.
Long live the revolution, but it’s time some of us didn’t have our cake and eat it too.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Matt you have to consider that some things are not possible. Like every Wallaby playing NRC. Any first choice Wallaby should not play NRC at all, as 7 test matches fall across the NRC Window. In that time the test players need breaks for travel. A first choice Wallaby could play up to 33 games in a year. A non-Wallaby who plays NRC and Super Rugby will play 29 max. In addition their season will end in October, not December. The players in academies has come about because it was necessary to have these players training in full time professional systems to prepare them for professional rugby. The only time these players do not play club games is when they are selected for Super Rugby, injured or have A games.
Matt
Roar Rookie
Shute Shield is broken. I love club rugby - have loved it my whole life. I go to nearly every home game I can I dont travel to away games to stand essentially by myself My Club is financially viable - has produced Wallabies ( quote a few ) in the last 15 years I have not seen them turn out for their club ( or NRC team ) on more than a collective handful of occasions Most Shute Shield clubs still get by on Sausage sizzles - donations - spending as little as possible - and volunteers. As much as I love my club - soon there will be nobody to play against - nobody to showcase our best players - so they can ply their trade to impress selectors for higher honours , make a professional career a possibility . I would make 2 changes - 1.I would dissolve Shit Shield - force club amalgamations make it NCRC ( National Club Rugby Championships ) Subbies becomes stronger - Village becomes stronger - it resembles the pathway that was intended by NRC that Schute clubs choose to ignore and support - Real money has been thrown at this by Buildcorp and the rugby community i general has done nothing about getting on board - and SS supporters cant bring themselves to follow a team thats not their club - its a poison challis ass far as they are concerned. 2. Every Wallaby has to have played NRC - must compete for positions in the national side amongst his peers. No more academy short cuts - no more league converts given dumb money and time to get 'a feel for it' The resultant product - would be every bit as good as good a comp as in NZ and SA - thats why they have depth in the code and supporters to burn ............. and a TV audience. Q the 'feedback'
Squirrel
Guest
The ARU have failed miserBly to provide a domestic completion . They should have supported the Shute shield rather than decimate it. They are killing participation and supporter base is declining no matter what figures your propaganda machine drums up
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
That's untrue. Many pushed to get the ARC off the ground in 2007. The losses it incurred showed just what the difficulties in moving from Super Rugby were. The ARU were still broke in 2015 but will double their TV Revenue in 2016 and have their national competition (NRC) guaranteed for 5 seasons. Surely that is a step towards the ability to transition away from Super Rugby.
PeterK
Roar Guru
Hog - What has changed is that at least Aust rugby has kept pace with professional rugby around the world and not fallen away or gone completely. They survived the transition from amateur successfully. When you say blatantly clear what structure australian punters prefer, some questions. What structure is that? How many aust punters, who are they where are they? Aust rugby does not have many followers. The attendance at NRC matches is poor. What solution do you offer that will be viable to transition to, that will keep the ARU solvent, and keep finances such that they remain professional.
Hog
Guest
And guess what they lost control to another entity. So pick your poison, at the time they may not of had other options. But 20 yrs later where has that option got the code. My biggest gripe is they have never really tried to address the obvious negatives of super rugby. It is blatantly clear what structure Australian punters prefer, and what structure will give you long term benefits. Yet the ARU still back, without any real efforts to change that structure a competition that will forever marginalise the code here. So the ARU were broke in 1996, well guess what there were still broke in 2015. So nothing's really changed.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
It's not a "kiddie tax". Compare codes and what they cost. They're all the same. It was a removal of the subsidies they once provided to it. The Gold Coast Bulletin ran an article comparing Rugby Union to RL, AFL and Soccer. Union came in second. Soccer and AFL had higher fees. Some AFL clubs are able to reduce fees by their own commercial success.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Concerned supporter you show your ignorance with your comments. Are you aware the RUPA agreement stipulates the percentage of income that must be spent on player salaries? If $500,000 was not spent on Hunt, it would not have gone to clubs. It would have gone to another player. And who f---ing cares what a bunch of old yuppies from the Eastern Suburbs have heard of. More numbers at junior levels means more fans. Plain and simple. The Shute Shield is a small speck of the clubs in Australia that only caters to people who already are ingrained in rugby. It's not bringing in new fans. You know what is though? The village/subbies/country club that's bringing in a bunch of kids. That's catering to new players who've never played rugby before. These are the places that are developing the future fans that will sustain the code. The Shute Shield clubs clearly do not have enough fans to sustain the code. Their published financial statements show they lack the fans to sustain themselves. Hog, You keep beating the same drum but ignoring the reality. Super Rugby is only in one way not in the interests of Australian rugby (potential growth). In another it is very much so (current income). Which is most important for a company on the brink of insolvency? When I say the best interests, I mean consideration of all the facts. Not just a single element.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Because articles like this are complaining about a lack of funding to a group which received collectively something like $10M+ in funding since around 2000.
Bakkies
Guest
'Hog – A national comp in 1996 would have failed financially. It would not have gained the broadcast revenue that financed super rugby. Where would the funding have come from? There would not have been a professional program at all.' Exactly. The ARU were broke in 1995 and the loigies were verging on civil war which did eventuate. Packer and co were forming their own rebel organisation in Rugby by signing up leading Boks, Wallabies and ABs. Murdoch stumped US$500 million over 10 years that guaranteed income to the ARU as partners. They had no choice to sign up or lose control of the game in Australia completely. The alternative was to see the best players swan off to non IRB approved competitions in plastic jerseys/teams under Packer or Turnbull or worse sign up to the unlimited money that was floating around loig due to the civil war.
BeastieBoy
Guest
Im calling it BS and hot wind from the ARU. They want to get rid of the Toff tag. Well then remove the Kiddie tax on juniors playing the game. make it available and affordable for those less wealthy families. Introduce a schools sevens comp so those smaller schools can play rugby and the ones that do can keep the ball in their hands over summer. Create pathways and competitions for the juniors out west, north, south and east who don't go to flash private schools. Heads up. Ain't going to happen.
lao hu
Guest
Train Without A Station said | February 16th 2016 @ 11:14am | Report comment What nobody aligned with the clubs wants to accept is the clubs have made their own fate and missed their own opportunity. There was once 2 other equivalents to the Shute Shield in other codes. The NSWRL and the VFL. These equivalents progressed themselves to be not just the dominant competition, but the flagship revenue producers. Essentially these competitions became the governing body of their sport in Australia, through their own commercial success. The Shute Shield clubs have beaten their chests, then asked the ARU for handouts. The Shute Shield should have evolved into the ARU, but the failure of the Shute Shield to develop into a sustainable commercial enterprise is why this has not happened. Super Rugby came about due to this hole in the market. If Shute Shield was a revenue producer it would have had the power and Super Rugby would never have came about. Now to compete a game needs money and the ARU needs to look at broadcast revenues and base their structures on that. Not doing so would result in imminent insolvency and an impossible climb back to being a major code in Australia. the most insightful post yet on the subject.
PeterK
Roar Guru
Hog - A national comp in 1996 would have failed financially. It would not have gained the broadcast revenue that financed super rugby. Where would the funding have come from? There would not have been a professional program at all.
Hog
Guest
PeterK We will have to disagree. The brumbies would have been formed under any professional program, don't try to credit super rugby with there birth, that's just crap. Same as the Rebels and Force who are just surviving with the expat support that already existed. In 1996 the answer was a national Comp.Sadly the vested interests which still exist made sure that didn't happen. 20 years on and we're stuck with Super pay TV rugby which sadly means rugby will never reach a greater or bigger audience in this country. So sorry imho opinion It was not the right decision.
concerned supporter
Guest
TWAS, You never give up.I do not want to be in Rugby Administration.I have been on cricket club administration & committees for many years.Life Member. But dont you now realize that the ARU 2015 grants were NIL? So why are you talking about disproportionate funding? NIL x NIL= NIL Full Stop.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
It's not a proposal. It's noting that it is what would happen if the Shute Shield didn't exist. As a result, why the Shute Shield should not receive disproportionate funding. Your background and law and accounting is great. How exactly does that have anything to do with rugby administration?
sheek
Roar Guru
Sorry PK, I get less tolerant as I get older. I'm quite clear on my vision even if I don't always articulate it as well as I would like. 1. Rugby Championship. 10/10 - no change. 2. Super rugby - only as a Champion's Cup (say, top two from each country). 3. Four national domestic enclosed comps - Australia, NZ, SA, Argentina. 4. Inbound & outbound tours - keep them but max. two tests inbound, max. three tests outbound, one per country. A couple of non-test matches (2-3) for both inbound & outbound tours. 5. NRC - p*ss it off, waste of space. National domestic comp & Champion's Cup suffices. 6. Re-invigorate premier rugby (district clubs) as final calling place for aspiring rep players. 7. All rugby from grassroots up funnel into district clubs (aspirational professional players) or suburban/regional (recreational semi-pro/amateur players). 8. Completely overhaul schoolboys rugby. Disband private school comps & institute regions or zones, just like NZ & SA. That's basically it & I've been consistent in this for, oh heck, maybe 40 years. I've modified & adapted where I've needed to but held firm where I've needed to as well.....
concerned supporter
Guest
TWAS, I may be an old fossil but I still work with the Legal Profession & Accounting Profession. You seem to have plenty of time on your hands,judging by the multitude of your posts!
concerned supporter
Guest
TWAS, Put your Kentwell Cup proposal to the NSWRU or the ARU.
PeterK
Roar Guru
agree that is pocket money chump change and loses a great tradition that people do identify with. Same as changing the wallabies jerseys often.