Papworth's Sydney and Brisbane comp is not what rugby needs

The Australian rugby championship consumed the surplus from the world cup. The National rugby championship is a cut price version but is just a big loss maker. They got an extra parcel of TV money from overseas and thats been used to fund the NRC. There is little interest below super rugby level, the only way to make a national championship work is to withdraw from super rugby. you would have to slash wages and your foregoing the super Tv money, but you would get some of it back because the national championship would be worth more than currently. This would also lead to an exodus of players overseas. The third option would be to go back to the past, by not havng any super rugby or national championship, the local clubs would then be the only level below international rugby. This would be the lowest in revenue but by far the best in costs. You already have these club competitions running anyway. The club competitions would increase in revenue and because they have no travel costs. Then you would have all the big players overseas. Wallabies are the main money earner in any case.The advantage of having most players in Europe for the Wallabies would be they would be their to play many test matches against northern hemisphere teams. Then you would bring them back in the offseason to play Wallaby matches.

Newport for example is part of Warringah. The junior rep players of that comp play for Warringah. How is there no connection or emotional tie?

15-16,000. Yes they do make money and one of the few Top 14 clubs in the black. Their accounts have to be presented to independent auditors every season.

All Blues expenditure is accounted for under Blues Limited Partnership expenses. I'd imagine the amateur rugby & rugby development costs costs would be the teams from U13. There is no loss. There is a shortfall of $600k between what they make from Mitre 10 Cup and what the spend on it.

Its great you had a look at Auckland income and expense figures. Two things you don't understand: 1. Representative team costs includes ALL teams from U13 to Mitre 10 Cup 2. The $600k loss is related to grass roots development funding which is inherently loss making and requires NZR investment. It is not a Mitre 10 Cup loss. You have overstated the Mitre 10 Cup costs. Much of the income is apportioned there and it is a profit centre. Everywhere else are investment and loss centres. Also there are things in the accounts you don't understand. They have just invested in a new multimillion dollar training facility with the Blues ao that can account for some operating losses.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11676822 Auckland announced a 37 man squad. At an average salary of $35,000 that's $1.29M. The Top 14 and Aviva Premiership may in fact be national club competitions. But the clubs are nothing like Australian clubs and are closure in stature to the Australian and New Zealand Super Rugby teams. You keep saying I'm wrong but cannot demonstrate that. I looked at Auckland's Annual Report. They specifically note ITM Cup revenue of $574k. And Sponsorship of $1.4M. I will assume this is mostly ITM Cup related as what else would people be sponsoring? So their total ITM Cup income is somewhere around $2M. One of the biggest unions in the biggest city. Seems about right. They specifically note ITM Cup expenditure of $462k. Then sponsorship expenses of $500k, marketing expenses of $200k and representative team costs of $2M. So they have around $3.1M of expenses against $2M of income. Include the $535k of broadcast fees and their income is still $600k less than their expenses specifically related to All income and expenditure related to the Blues is noted under specific line items. There is income from the North and South Trust. But it is not granted for use on professional or elite rugby: "Under the terms of the authorised purpose statement of North and South Trust Limited, the grants received are required to be used to support and encourage amateur games or sport where the game or sport is conducted for the benefit of the general public. All gaming machine grants received from North and South Trust Limited have been appropriately used for the authorised purpose of the promotion and support of amateur rugby."

The Top 14 in France and Aviva Premiership in England are national club championships. TWAS is completely clueless. $35k average salary comes out at a salary cap around a millions dollars. You don't know math. North Harbour receives a "Grant" from NZR and community trust boards that includes: - Mitre 10 broadcast share - grassroots development funding - special funding applied for on a competitive basis - long term one off capital injections to improve facilities etc - upto a million dollars in local trust income from local charities from gambling and other bodies because it is a RICH area Give up TWAS you are 100% WRONG about the Mitre 10 cup. It is sustainable. You are wrong wrong wrong

Where does Europe have a national club championship? They have an invitational professional tournament based on domestic results. It's only similar if you can say Randwick are similar to London Wasps. But in fact Randwick would actually be inferior to the Doncaster Knights and similar Championship level teams which are fully professional.

If larger unions can pay a max of $1M in salaries then the average salary is not $35k. Some smaller unions may pay only around $700k and that is the absolute minimum they are allowed to based on an $18k minimum salary.

$950k in sponsorship revenues is not "off the charts"... If North Harbour are high then most other teams are lower and it stacks up even less. I'm not digging at anything from 5 years ago. I'm looking at what teams make now, what it costs to run a team and what the TV revenue is. Of course these teams are turning profits. They are getting grants of $2M+ when the TV revenue is only $535k per team. That's the NZRU subsidizing them...

"$1.4M on coaching and representative expenses. I highly doubt this includes player salaries as that would be about $1.2M and leave almost nothing else." Let me school you.. You don't know how it works. The NZr allocates wach union funds from the Broadcast revenues = $530,000 each and teams are able to use this to pay their players and teams and travel costs etc. HOWEVER teams are allowed to pay players more if they they satisfy an audited revenue target of more than a certain figure for safety. For instance, if a union covers all its other grassroots obligations it can apply to NZR to be able to appy more of its sponsorship and commercial revenues to Mitre 10 Cup on a ratio basis such as 70% so as to keep the unions stable. It is part of the sustainability system to stop unions over spending on players. There may also be a cap of around $1 million on player salaries. Some smaller unions pay $700,000 in salaries. Larger unions have excess cash but are only allowed to put in upto $1million with the rest going to investment in grassroots and player development. THAT is why Wellington had such a small crowd for their semi. Their Hurricanes stars were spread far and wide and the Wellington Mitre 10 Cup team is still languishing in the bottom division and lost in the playoffs AGAIN!!

TWAS not sure what point you are trying to make with North Harbour. Let me school you up: - they sit in one of the most well off regions in the country - that is why their sponsorship and total revenues are off the charts. - their actual playing numbers in the region are low compared to other regions. - with almost a million dollars in sponsorship and broadcast income share from NZR their Mitre 10 Cup team makes a profit. There are better examples you could have tried. Even Otago which was bankrupt and needed to be rescued in 2013 is now turning a profit. I would say if you looked at Bay of Plenty, Manawatu or Southland their numbers might be breakeven. All othet unions are back well into healthy figures based on 50% growth in broadcast revenues and solid growth in spinsorship. Revenues from pokie game machines and alcohol sponsors have declined due to social legislation and campaiga but this has more than been replaced. You are digging for something that happened 5 years ago let it go. Auditors have produced reports showing all unions are in the black and Mitre 10 teams are sustainable. That was a key push of the NZR. You cannot believe numbers you yourself produced.

In their 2015 Annual Report, North Harbour Rugby Union spend: $220k on Professional Rugby administration $230k on Marketing expenses $130k on Match and Stadium Expenses $1.4M on coaching and representative expenses. I highly doubt this includes player salaries as that would be about $1.2M and leave almost nothing else. That indicates a budget of around $2M per year actually. Their major revenues are $950k in sponsorship and $2.4M in grants. They also appear to lose money on the Blues, having a greater expense than revenue for their role in the partnership.

I have assumed your numbers are correct. They do not stack up. If you have a squad of 35 per team, and the average salary is $35,000, which would be right considering $18,000 is the minimum, then the TV deal does not cover the salaries of the Premiership Division teams Every sustainable sport has a TV deal which is considerably higher than the salary costs. Something like 200-300%. The Mitre 10 Cup TV deal is not 100% of salary costs. Wellington may have had an up and down season. But it was up enough to make the finals of the championship division, where 2,600 people turned out to watch it. You're numbers don't disprove anything I say. I don't see anything to suggest that total independent revenue would exceed $1M per team. Considering that Sydney Uni has a Shute Shield budget in excess of that, I don't see Mitre 10 Cup teams with multiple full time staff operating on less than $1M. Which means that to fill the gap between that and the TV deal, the NZRU needs to subsidize it. It may have plenty of years of history. But right now the signs are not good based on the crowd interest and the provinces reliance on this for their own football budgets. The total player salaries across the competition would be over $17M. The total team expenditures would be over $14M. With a TV deal of $7.5M per year, unless the teams have revenue streams of close to $2M then (assuming budgets are only $1M which is very low) then it is not self sustaining.

TWAS you do not know. Wellington started well but had another up and down season. They were in discussions with the council for jersey sponsorship of between $100k to $200k but that fell through when it could not get council votes. Most teams can get jersey sponsorship totalling upto $200,000 alone, then there are other commercial partnerships, corporate boxes, merchandise, other commercial income (e.g. hosting training camps for Japanese players and coaches, competitions, appearances etc). Wellington Lions Mitre 10 players fronted a local council tv qnd online campaign for something this year. So you are 100% wrong in your core point that the Mitre 10 Vup is not Sustainable. It is 100% sustainable. Salaries were reduced and unions were restructured since 5 years ago specifically to make it sustainable separate from Super Rugby and it is. TWAS you have some idea Mitre 10 players make a lot of money. No they dont. Salaries range from $20k to about $80k and most are getting about $30k. Most teams have a good number of Super Players who have good contracts and get a special bonus incentive for playing more than 3 seasons of Mitre 10 Cup. Yes NZ does it right.

What gate takings are you talking about? Wellington got 2,600 to one of their Semi-Finals this year. North Harbour got 5,000 to a Semi-Final last year. They aren't raking in dough at the gates. I'd wager you are the one that doesn't know what you are talking about. My point was that the TV deal does not cover the player payments for the top division. I don't have to concede anything. Because that is the case.

And what about the cost of running the teams? Super Rugby teams have a budget of around $20M. I don't expect ITM Cup to be that high but they need to pay all of that before they then pay players. Every central union/admin controlled competition seems to pay players directly, rather than rely on the clubs/provinces making profits to do so.

I am a passionate Shute Shield club member and attend home and away matches every week. However, I am somewhat perplexed by the attitude of Papworth and Co when the NRC doesn't actually compete with the Premier Club competitions. It's played after they finish, so where's the conflict? They are complementary to each other. With Super Rugby now firmly entrenched, although I don't like the direction it's taking, there's no longer any time for first choice Wallabies to play for their Premier Clubs (if in fact they're aligned to any). Fringe Super Rugby players regularly turn out for their clubs and so they should if they're not on the playing roster for a particular match. In the old days before Super Rugby, the top Wallabies played with their clubs on a regular basis when they weren't required for Test duty. That's not the case today and never will be again. It's a whole new scenario now. I have to agree that the NRC is the way forward, but still needs a bit of tweaking, particularly in the structure of the NSW teams to engender a sense of tribalism. They went part of the way this year by ditching the Stars and the 3 remaining teams were much more competitive than in the past. Even though the Rams didn't win many games, they pushed their opposition to the limit, losing by only a few points on several occasions. The Rays were the only team to really get their structure right with a joint venture of the SS clubs in Northern Sydney. They should revert to the 'North Harbour' name so that they can be identified as belonging to that region. The Rams are part way there, but I don't see the point in Souths being aligned with them when Western Sydney is so far away from the Shire and St George areas. There's absolutely no community of interest. That brings us to the NSW Country Eagles. I'd be interested to know just how many current country players they have on their roster. From my observation, although some were from the country originally, most were city based players from Sydney University, Randwick, Easts and a few ring-ins from other clubs. As most of their games were played in Country NSW, there was little opportunity for the supporters of their respective club players to attend matches and see them play locally. Although I'll bring down the wrath of the Gods, this team should be based in Sydney and structured in a similar manner to the Rays, with the 4 clubs on the south side, including Southern Districts, forming a joint venture. It could be named South Harbour or Sydney. A compromise situation could be that each of the Sydney based teams played a game in the country. Eastwood, which has been sitting on the fence, has to come on board with the NRC because it has nowhere else to go. It has to make up its mind whether it wants to be part of the Rams or the Rays. It could fit into either. The NSW Rugby Union has to take a proactive role in bringing this about. One thing I would like to see is for the Shute Shield to revert to a 22 round home and away draw, starting around the same time as Super Rugby (beginning of March) and finishing with the Grand Final in late August. After a 2 week break, the NRC could then run through to the end of October /early November.

Also, whoever keeps comparing Australia to NZ (and South Africa because the Currie Cup is similar in many respects) is wrong. The rugby landscape is very different in Australia. What doesn't work or is not desired or necessary in NZ/SA may be useful or might work in Australia. There is a National Club Championship in Argentina. The obviously have it in Europe. Australia has deep problems competing with other major sports and with getting a grassroots operation going. Simply copying NZ or South Africa is not necessarily your answer man. The NRC has done alot of good precisely in my opinion because it has brought semi-pro rugby to the regions and to more players and fans. Is that not what a National Club competition could do? The fears that it would be contested by the same teams every year are unfounded. The same teams ALREADY win almost every year in some regions. This is ALREADY a problem isn't it? You need unions to work on building more even competitions and getting more clubs to be competitive locally. This takes time.

14 teams 30 players 420 players $35,000 average payment = $ = $15 million total If you think the 14 National unions are not able to come up with $500,000 per year on their own to fund the teams you are dreaming. Auckland and Canterbury can get way more that than while other teams can just make it. Put it in the bank. Self Funding.