Veteran halfback Alby Mathewson admits it’s an unsettling period for the Western Force team ahead of the looming Australian Rugby Union takeover, especially for players who are coming out of contract.
The ARU is poised to assume responsibility for the running of the struggling Super Rugby outfit in a bid to turn around the Force’s financial woes.
ARU chief executive Bill Pulver flew to Perth this week in a bid to nut out some final details, with a final deal expected to be signed off by next week.
Under the new structure, the Force football program is likely to remain untouched, but senior officials like chief executive Mark Sinderberry will report to the ARU.
Former All Black Mathewson is one of a number of players out of contract at season’s end, and the 30-year-old said it was unsettling not knowing exactly what’s going on.
The future of coach Michael Foley, who is contracted until the end of next season, is also in serious doubt, with the team having managed only two wins this season.
“I know there’s a few boys off contract, and it effects everyone differently,” Mathewson said on Wednesday.
“The ARU talked to us a couple of days ago. Bill Pulver was over here trying to shed some light on the situation.
“Hopefully in the next week or so there’s a lot more clarity, because there’s quite a few other players wondering what’s going on with that sort of stuff.”
Mathewson’s own situation is even more unique than that of his teammates.
He arrived in Perth as the Force’s international marquee, meaning he could only stay for a maximum of two years.
The ARU granted special permission to extend Mathewson’s contract by a further two years in 2014, and the Kiwi is hopeful the same situation will occur again.
“I’ve been here for four years now, so I’m pretty settled,” Mathewson said.
“But I understand the way rugby works with contracts and moving around. So I’ll just have to wait and see.”
The Force will be playing for pride when they take on the Rebels in Melbourne on Sunday.
Flyhalf options Luke Burton (foot), and Ian Prior (knee) have already been ruled out, while skipper Matt Hodgson will miss the rest of the season with a serious shoulder injury.
Hodgson has been the Force’s best player this year, and Mathewson said the inspirational 34-year-old would be sorely missed.
“We want to make Hodgo proud,” Mathewson said.
“We want to put out a good performance that he can watch and say, ‘Yeah, that’s my team’.”
AndyS
Guest
You honestly believe the Wallabies are valued at no more than the Force...seriously?
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
3 years ago the Force had higher crowds than the Waratahs.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
I call it turnover because it may need to go to other parts of the business. But super rugby I comings vs super rugby outgoings, it's about $2.3M ARU profit per team per year.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Why should it be spread on an equal basis? A country with 6 teams provides more broadcast content that one with 5. SA actually subsidise Aus and NZ a little though. Your comment about being no difference between club rugby and super rugby is ludicrous. Take the "not super rugby standard" Reds who defeated last year's premiers this year and lost to the 2014 premiers by 2 points. About half their squad makes up the Bris City NRC team which I think has lost 1 game in 2 seasons. In this competition you see the difference between the professionals and club players. And half the apparently not super rugby quality Reds dominates this competition.
AndyS
Guest
We really do have a different view on investment then, not least in differentiation between spending hard capital to produce mere turnover. Probably sufficient to observe that the money attributable to the Wallabies will be significantly more and completely unrelated to the number of teams in SR, and if you take that out it presents a very different investment proposition. But again, that remains an aside. The current situation is binary - either the approach taken to the Rebels was a good investment, so it would be utterly illogical to not do the same again with the Force and risk a different outcome. Or it was a bad investment, so they will do something different with the Force. I guess we'll find out soon enough.
cuw
Guest
from what u have wriiten , i infer that the amount of money oz gets depends on the number of teams in the fight. so does it mean saffers get more by having 6 teams - though one is bad and the other is utter rubbish?? imo that is crap ; the money shud be for the country on an equal basis. i will always go back to my arguement that super in the long run will stay alive by going back to 12 teams. if oz wants to widen player base , it needs to have a second level competition like itm or currie cup. super in the concept was not a place to blood or give experience to players. it was supposed to be a competition for the elite players to bridge the gap between test and club rugger. now unfortunately there is no difference between club rugger and some of super rugger teams. i mean if u take teams like force kings reds etc c, they are not super class - like chiefs crusaders lions even brumbies (despite their off form this time). quality over quantity - it happens with any game or sport over time. the consumer will always look for the quality and keep switching until they find it.
cuw
Guest
NO CHANCE IN HELL if super keeps expanding. their only hope is for the powers that be to see light and realize the expansion has resulted in crap teams AND most importantly fans are rejecting them. (like when kings v blued had like 200 people at the ground).
Mel R
Guest
A Big Amen to that ;) The farce can soon be a force to reckon with again :)
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
It's not to make 20% of $50M. It's to make 20% of $50M annually. The ARU provides under $30M annually in Super Rugby grants, or $6M per team. With the new TV deal they will earn $50M across the Wallabies and 5 franchises, approx $8.3M per team. So that's $2.3M per year they are bringing in based on the Force remaining there. That's a yield of about 16% on their existence. In addition to the performance benefits of 35 additional professional players based in Australian and eligible for the Wallabies. If anything, if they spend an additional $15M on the Force (which I doubt they will), that's about 6 years of their net return on the Force, to maintain the 5th team's presence. So they break even on the Force for 6 years, and get the benefit of 6 more years of rugby growing in WA as a result.
Paul
Guest
If I could invest $15M to then get a return of $10M p/a I certainly would.
AndyS
Guest
Very, they inherently come with risk. Wondering about yourself when you simplistically present the scenario of spending $15M to make 20% of $50M. It may well make sense in the short term for the Force, just as it probably did for the Rebels. My point was that if PS's glowing future were a real possibility, why didn't it eventuate for the Rebels and/or why did the ARU walk away from it - two would surely have been better than one? There may be some world in which the ARU would actively manage players, pump in money and turn the Force into an on and off field success (notably and unavoidably at the expense of the other teams), but if so why didn't they do that last time? As a minimum the historical performance of the investment class doesn't bode well, especially in an even more difficult times.
Smiggle Jiggle
Roar Guru
New coach with an attaching mindset = win for Force. If the Lions can do it, then the Force can do it.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Good news for the Force. It's now in the ARU's best interest to ensure they are financially sustainable long term.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Somebody takes the risk of their hands. That's the purpose. The new TV deal would likely cover the costs they put into the Force in the short term. It would then result in maintaining the difference between Super Rugby grant as ARU revenue. Are you familiar with the concept of an investment? You put money into something now on the basis it will continually bring you return, or a large yield in the future.
Darwin Stubbie
Guest
Could just as easily be spun the other way ... given the noise out of SANZAAR recently about a full review of the competition and the hiring of a firm to look into future models and the statement that everything is on the table ie expansion, conference make ups and team viability. .. an ARU take over makes it easier to cut a side .. if the revamp suggests similar revenue shares can be maintained or enhanced by a new format which cuts Aust SR sides to 4 and expands elsewhere. .. youd think the ARU maybe open to it given their financial position
AndyS
Guest
Missing the point. Pour loads of money into one and then pay for someone to take it off your hands, or put very little into another while taking over all control...diametric opposite responses to the same problem, so one or the other must have been a colossal FU. Empirically though, certainly not sure there is anything in the relationship between the Force/ARU over the last 10 years to indicate that the ARU has success in the West as any sort of priority...the opposite if anything
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Because they're responsible for about 20% of the $50M in TV revenue the game brings.
AndyS
Guest
Fingers crossed, but if that were the case the cynic in me wonders why they poured $M15+ into the Rebels so that someone else could own them...?
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
And what about the money thrown at QLD and NSW to get them to a state where both don't even make money at the same time
Brett McKay
Expert
The sponsorship angle is the really big one I think. If the ARU is renewing Qantas, for sake of picking one as an example, and they're quibbling over say, $11 or $12M, the ARU could suddenly throw the front of the Force jersey into the mix and do the deal for $13M. Or the other way, maybe someone like Fortescue (FMG - Andrew Forrest) could suddenly get access to say, the Wallabies coaches' training kit for a couple of hundred thousand more, if they stump up for the front of the Force jersey..