The Roar’s Spiro Zavos wrote in a recent article ‘Given its great number of players, about 500,000, and the great wealth within the rugby community, it is actually something of a marvel how unsuccessful England has been as a rugby nation’.
The same sentiments could be echoed for both the Reds and the Waratahs in regards to Australian rugby.
No amount of obfuscation can change a number of undeniable facts.
I. The Brumbies are Australia’s most successful team, and the most consistently successful over the past five years;
II. The Brumbies have a much better history than the Waratahs or the Reds of consistently developing their players to be among the best in Australia;
III. The Brumbies have done this with far fewer resources than the Reds or Waratahs, and often when only getting the ‘scraps’ that the Reds and Waratahs did not want.
This means that the Brumbies are either much better at identifying prospective talent than the other teams, offer a much better training and development environment than the other teams, or both.
Take 2017, for example. Most pundits picked the Reds or Waratahs as the teams most likely to top the Australian conference. They had by far the best and most experienced teams on paper.
Meanwhile, the Brumbies had lost the wealth of their experience with Pocock on sabbatical, Lealiifano’s cancer, Vaea’s retirement, Cubelli’s injury and Tomane, Toomua and Moore departing. This is in addition to Nic White and Jesse Mogg, previous key players in the team leaving in the last few years.
Despite this, the Brumbies just smashed a woeful Waratahs team in Sydney and are clearly topping the Australian conference.
The Waratahs are playing pathetically incompetent rugby. I would not be surprised if they finish last in the Australian conference.
The Reds, while showing occasional glimpses of good abilities, are mostly languishing.
The Wallabies are the most important team in Australia for rugby. If the Wallabies are winning then Australia cares more about rugby. History since professionalism has demonstrated time and again that the Brumbies contribute the most to the Wallabies, especially relative to Canberra’s population size.
Even the Force and the Rebels have a history of doing more with less resources than NSW or Queensland, whose constant mismanagement of top talents is bordering on criminality.
If the Brumbies are cut and their players are dispersed through the other teams. watch the talents languish and previously skilful players go backwards.
This will especially be the case with the players who move to NSW and Queensland.
Meanwhile, if the Reds or Waratahs are disbanded, watch the other provinces develop many of their players to higher levels than they currently achieve.
More importantly, rugby is more than a business. It has deep cultural roots to many of us as well.
I don’t care what people say about NSW or Queensland as the heart of Australian rugby, people in those states care about their team less than those of Canberra do.
The Waratahs and Reds are based in cities about 12 times larger than Canberra, and have far more marketable superstars in their team than the Brumbies. Despite this, their crowd sizes are barely higher than those of the Brumbies.
Ideally, no Australian team should go. Each one is important to their fans, to Australian rugby and a cultural heartland for rugby in their state. It is a tragedy that any should go, and I commiserate with any fan who loses their team.
That said, if a team has to be cut it absolutely must not be the Brumbies – for the good of both Canberra and Australian rugby. A Brumbies administration of Sydney would almost certainly lead to better results for Australian rugby and the Wallabies than those that have been achieved by the untouchable NSW Waratahs.
Slim 293
Guest
I'm a bit late to respond to this but I have to correct you on a couple of points - 1. The Brumbies have recorded 3 profits in the past 13 years (the most recent being 2010). The Crimes article saying otherwise was incorrect, and contradicted several other articles it published on the issue - including one the same week. 2. A quick google search reveals that the Brumbies have actually recorded higher average attendances than the Rebels and the Force since 2012.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Absolutely ludicrous comment. As long as you are talking about cutting one team somewhere, there's a lack of social nuance. To say that bringing the Brumbies into the discussion is a lack of this ignores the fact that saying the same for the Force or the Rebels, which all those oppose the Brumbies being discussared are saying, is doing the same thing. So anybody arguing anything other than simply maintaining 5 teams at all costs is guilty of this. Tell me what's the social impact if you ignore the bottom line and cut one team, but the wrong one, then impact the other 4 even more too?
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
I don't think it should be purely financial considerations. I think support and fan engagement is important. But here's the things. Support will drive finances, so ultimately it comes back to that. In government policy we talk about finances and social conscience. Funnily enough when talking about professional rugby performance is probably more similar to financial consideration in government policy, whilst social consideration is more so fans and participants, and ultimately funds by virtue of fans and participants.
Peter Doherty
Guest
The most titles and finals appearances of any Australian team. Consistently top of the Aussie conference. Most loyal fans. I've been in the stands supporting since the beginning. #warriors #brumbiesforlife
emride
Guest
Commercial illusion... approaching 20,000 members, one of the highest levels of sponsorships in NRL, one of the best ownership groups in Australian sport, in partnership with Manchester City in owning Melbourne City A-League team, own the Lightning netball team, strong TV viewership in Victoria and a culture of success. Oh and they tried to buy the Rebels... massive illusion!
RahRah
Guest
Unfortunately true enough - maybe combine Fiji, Tonga and Samoa, base them in Hawaii (played in the NFL off season it could be a way into the American market), close to Japan and Argentina. There will be all kinds of reasons put forward why it could never work but with some imagination there would be a way to really support Pacific rugby. I'm so tired of rugby rich nations paying lip service to supporting the Pacific but in reality giving them nothing, preferring to pillage the talent and give nothing in return.
Oblonsky‘s Other Pun
Roar Guru
And, TWAS, I completely agree that the Brumbies have the smallest market and are thus the most perilous team in terms of longterm financial viability. That being said, there are plenty examples of longterm subsidisation from government providing longterm benefits: Toyota was subsidised after making a lesson for over 18 years; the US government has provided most R&D funding for all time because the ancillary benefits to society are important enough. You think it should be pure financial considerations. I disagree with this. I think that the Brumbies are needed for the longterm viability and success of the Wallabies. I think if you get rid of the Brumbies and spread their players through the other provinces there is nothing to suggest the other teams will be better. I think we will be killing our only consistently strong team and we will still be left with 2 consistently weak teams and 2 inconsistent teams. No amount of obscuring facts or playing down the Brumbies' successes change the fact that the Brumbies have a history of doing more with less; the Waratahs and the Reds have a history of doing less with more.
Republican
Guest
.........you could be the next Federal Treasurer given an 'asperger' trait of lacking any social nuance or feelings whatsoever. Heres an idea TWAS, why don't we simply do away with players altogether and replace them with robots, I mean this is now a reality with Centrelink rolling out at a number at their shop fronts to replace front line staff all in the name of the bottom line? With respect TWAS, I can't see any compromise being struck philosophically between yourself and myself, so its good night & good luck from me..........
Oblonsky‘s Other Pun
Roar Guru
Has money solved all problems thus far? Has the additional revenue improved the enjoyment factor of Australian rugby? Has the additional revenue improved the results of the Australian sides at either Super or international level?
Oblonsky‘s Other Pun
Roar Guru
'Why would my comments focus on anything other than financials and markets size.' and 'It’s not. It’s an article of a bunch of reasons which only relate to one aspect, on why YOUR team should stay.' Do you not see the inconsistency and massive hypocrisy in maintaining these two positions at once? You're simultaneously holding the position that it is wrong to have an article/argument based on one aspect of why I team should be kept/gotten rid of and at the same time arguing it is totally reasonably to have an argument based completely on a different aspect of why a team should stay or go. The only difference is, you think that finances and market size should be the primary determinant, I disagree. You don't have an issue with someone focusing on only one aspect, you have an issue with someone focusing on the aspect that you believe isn't the most important.
AndyS
Guest
Ah...
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Because to keep up Australian rugby needs to make more money in the future. As a result teams need to increase their penetration, but there is a limit to how far you can go. Can the Brumbies increase theirs, and is the most reasonable expectation of what they can achieve enough to sustain them? FWIW I think the Force sold their IP to the ARU, and are or have purchased it back. The Rebels are privately owned so not completely the ARU's issue. I can't speak on the Waratahs but the Reds were loaned money and have paid it back. What that means is that ultimately where they sit financially now is an accurate representation, as any funds the ARU assisted with are not on their bank balance, and were taken off before 2010-2013 profits were recorded.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
They (or possibly the ARU) are paying $300k a year for the privilege mind you
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Because the islands won't be able to sustain themselves on attendances, nor bring in enough viewers to pay for themselves unfortunately.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Where would the money come from to pay for it?
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Purely because the ARU don't have to fund the NZ teams. If NZRU can afford it then that is there decision.
AndyS
Guest
I didn't know about the SS managing a FTA gig; that is good news. Hopefully they will give it a bit of promotion on the main channel to let folk know.
Train Without A Station
Roar Guru
Why would my comments focus on anything other than financials and markets size. I have specifically said that is my only questioning of the Brumbies. I have nothing else to comment on the matter. Nobody suggests the Brumbies haven't had a successful history. That's a fact that can't be disputed. Whether this can be continued is something that can be.
RahRah
Guest
Interesting numbers. It would appear that most are of Polynesian descent which is hardly surprising given that most of the game's growth seems to be coming from the Polynesian community. It's why I would like to see us become a Pacific competition, AU 5, NZ 5, and Pac 5 (Fiji, Samoa, Tonga and Japan, Argentina to round out the 5). SA to go and play in Europe.
Republican
Guest
Why such an emphasis on Brumbies financials? They have never been bailed out by the ARU unlike other Unions. The Force are currently in a trustee type relationship with the ARU, so their financials are clearly less than acceptable. I can't imagine that the Rebels turn over a profit while Qld and NSW have been anything but financially virtuous throughout their checkered history. There is no doubt that the Brumbies have assumed the role of whipping boys for Australia's Rugby woes.