One of the arguments regularly raised against the retention of a professional rugby presence in Victoria is that Melbourne is not a rugby city. Why should Rugby Australia throw good money after bad when nobody cares about the game south of the Murray?
Last week, Academy Movement founder and director, Jimmy Orange, then Rebels CEO Baden Stephenson, and Rugby Victoria President Neil Hay launched a new rugby academy at Lara Secondary College, in Melbourne’s west.
In the same week, another new academy was opened on Melbourne’s northern fringe, at Mernda Central College. This brings to eight, the total of rugby academies in Melbourne’s public school system, with five currently under Orange’s Academy Movement banner.
From nothing in 2015, that means eight schools with comprehensive rugby programs, for boys and girls, a meaningful schools competition, and a pathway for the most talented into the Rebels program.
That conveyor belt has only just got started; lock Trevor Hosea a notable early graduate, impressive Wallabies Under 20 loose forward Leafi Talataina, among others to more recently transition into a professional rugby career.
(Photo by Asanka Ratnayake/Getty Images)
Or not. Should Rugby Australia determine there is no future for the Rebels, repercussions will extend much further than the Super Rugby fixture list.
A deeper understanding of how Academy Movement works, sheds light on what is at stake. “The key to the program is focusing first on academic success. We’ve seen terrific uptick in student engagement with their schooling, staying on for longer, performing better,” says Orange.
“Rugby is an obvious motivator, but it’s important that this follows, rather than leads,” he adds.
“Not every student is going on to have a professional career, so it’s important we don’t allow them to tie their whole identity to rugby, and we give them opportunities for academic advancement.”
The model sees Orange work with each school to provide a curriculum. Included is a teacher who is also a qualified rugby coach.
It’s equal parts fun and serious business. “This is light-years removed from throwing a few cones on the ground, having the kids kick and pass a rugby ball for half an hour, and counting them as ‘rugby participants’ in an annual report,” he says.
As his business matures, Orange is able to see what works and what doesn’t, and modify his programs accordingly. “The biggest factor by far is that the students can see and feel that they are part of an integrated rugby pathway,” he explains.
“These kids are inherently aspirational. When they are able to see the real outcomes that students before them are having in rugby, meet and touch their heroes, that’s a crucial motivator for how they approach their own involvement.”
There’s more: “The provision of playing kit, for example, is vitally important. Not because it’s free gear, but because they get to wear the Rebels colours and badge. They feel as if they belong to something real, like they are the Rebels Super Rugby and Super W players of the future. And from there, future Wallabies and Wallaroos.”
It’s plainly obvious that this is a critical link between the professional and community game; something that Australian rugby has been missing for too long. But, as things stand today, it has also led Orange into a world of pain.
With education budgets stretched, Orange encountered principals who loved the concept, but who baulked at the expense. A solution was brokered with Rebels Chairman Paul Docherty, and CEO Stephenson, whereby the Rebels would subsidise some of the cost, and more schools duly signed on.
That a professional franchise should be left to fund a schools development program reflects poorly on Rugby Australia. Faced with the choice of following the New South Wales path, where backs were turned on Western Sydney, and leaving these schools open for rugby league to pick the eyes out of, or secure them for rugby, with Rugby Australia’s knowledge, the Rebels proceeded.
Orange is reluctant to criticise hard-working and well-intentioned individuals, instead pointing to system failure and a lack of vision from the game’s leaders.
“It’s like rugby development has become a slave to structure. This is the way we do things, because this is the way we’ve always done things,” he says.
“Our central and state bodies have become bogged down spreading themselves too thinly, in some cases even trying to charge schools to send development officers in. And the ones they do get into, the depth and quality of what they deliver is questionable, because there’s no integration with the rest of the game, and in some cases, little understanding of the communities they’re dealing with.”
That arrangement set Orange onto a path where, ten days ago, he attended a meeting where the appointed administrator for the Melbourne Rebels confirmed Academy Movement as an unsecured creditor. He is now owed tens of thousands of dollars for services delivered through his program, with little prospect of seeing any of it.
Perhaps the most mind-blowing aspect surrounding all of the current upheaval is how Orange, effectively doing Rugby Australia and Rugby Victoria’s job for them – developing rugby pathways on the ground – has been left substantially out of pocket for doing so.
The truth about how the Rebels accumulated such a significant amount of debt – and who at Rugby Australia knew about it and sanctioned it – will play out over time. But for now, like everyone associated with the Rebels, Orange is more anxious about what things will look like for 2025 and beyond.
Brad Wilkin of the Rebels. (Photo by Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)
“I have another two schools looking closely at the program,” he says. “There’s capacity for another five, possibly up to ten more schools after that. But not while we’re hindered by all this uncertainty. And not if we’re unable to demonstrate a direct flow through to the Rebels.”
His comments carry a stark warning. “It’s clear what will happen if we walk away. Rugby league’s approach isn’t education-based, so in my view, the kids are already disadvantaged. But they are walking into schools saying ‘rugby is dead’ and ‘we are the pathway to a junior contract with the Storm.’”
Should rugby fail to find a way to accommodate Orange and the Rebels, he has another option. Last Thursday morning he met with officials from Cricket Victoria who, unsurprisingly, were very receptive to how transferable Orange’s model is for state schools with large, cricket-loving, migrant enrolments.
“Going down that path would be so much easier for me. There’s so much more money available in cricket, it’s way easier to find coaches, and there’s a much broader demographic.”
With his Hawke’s Bay blood running thick, it will take a lot to prise Orange out of rugby. But individuals like him, and the game itself, can only sustain so many hammer blows.
On his way to the offices of Cricket Victoria, Orange met briefly with Rugby Australia CEO Phil Waugh. With so many competing priorities no one envies Waugh’s task. Friday’s announcement of an increase in funding to women’s rugby of $3 million was both welcome and necessary.
Rugby Australia CEO Phil Waugh speaks to the media. (Photo by Chris Hyde/Getty Images)
But Rugby Australia’s forward revenue streams remain uncertain. It can’t finalise a new broadcast deal without knowing how many teams it will have and what competition they will play in. On the other hand, it doesn’t know how many teams it can afford to have without knowing the quantum of its new broadcast deal.
When it comes to Orange and to the Rebels, there is a sense of Waugh being in a race against time. If the Rebels are to be cast adrift (and there are many within Rugby Australia and New South Wales and Queensland rugby for whom this is a welcome fait accompli), it would be best done before Waugh is forced to release the report commissioned into Australia’s World Cup debacle.
Setting a multimillion-dollar budget blowout, including the best part of a million dollars spent on psychologists, against what Orange could deliver for rugby with just a fraction of that money, would be an appalling indictment on Rugby Australia.
There is also the matter of a Rebels team demonstrably stronger and more advanced than at any stage of their history. As such as there can ever be a ‘friendly draw’ in Super Rugby, the Rebels have one, and they are eminently capable of ending the first month of the competition near the top of the table.
It says everything about Australian rugby that, if that were to happen, instead of being a cause for celebration, it would instead be a source of acute embarrassment.
Note: Anyone wishing to make a contribution to Academy Movement can do so by contacting admin@academymovement.education
Muglair
Roar Rookie
I am not sure about 44, that must include cheaper PT development players. Really interesting point though. Just say for the simplicity of the maths, a probably underweighted best case 30 players, so if you have 10 topped up that only leaves $3m for 20 players. That might explain why the Tahs always seem to have too many potential stars in their squad, who don’t work out, go somewhere else and mature into good players. It would be interesting to know the salary profiles of each roster, without the names. Bottom line probably is that the game won’t succeed without more money, and won’t get more money until it succeeds. Investment is required, and they must make profitable investment with the $80m loan.
ScottD
Roar Guru
Yes it would be but that isn't really what I am saying and I doubt they would do that. The Tahs stated publicly in (I think) 2022 that they were constrained financially and had made the decision not to spend the full salary cap. So you are right, it's not great to save money through underspending on the salary cap but if you haven't got the money then I guess that is part of what you have to do. It is a bit crazy as to qualify for a RA top up I think the club has to pay $250k . So if the cap is $5.5m then you reach a natural limit of top up players before you destroy your squad. If you have 10 top ups then that costs you $2.5m, leaving only $3m available to recruit the other 34 players or $88k per player. You aren't going to get a lot of quality for $88k. And then if you deliberately don't fill your squad, you damage your depth. So I think that the wise position would be to have a maximum of maybe 4 RA top ups. But some squads have more and still have deep squads. I don't get how that can work - but it does. I guess it is an enticement to have 5-10 low cost development players in each squad. Anyway, I have banged my drum enough. Time to move on cheers mate
Muglair
Roar Rookie
You don't understand the transaction
Muglair
Roar Rookie
I am not sure how many 3rd party arrangements there would be. If a Wallaby signs up then typically the franchise pays up to the individual cap applied by RA, and then RA tops up to the amount they have agreed with the player. If the Rebels have been paying over and above then I agree that is madness. Not spending the salary cap is not a great strategy. I recall something about the Tahs too, but that is more likely because they were saving money to spend on certain players who did not materialise, or who did not want to join the Tahs. It will be a sure sign that depth is going to be exposed.
Bluesfan
Couple of years ago in the pristine days of yesteryear yea taking PE is not great. But we live in the real world where NZ can't competete with overseas salaries and we are effectively an Oil well to be milked dry by World Rugby for our players. I like the fact that NZRFU is taking proactive steps to maximize income for NZ including taking on PE and then growing it's international footprint to build out the AB and NZ Rugby brand. Reality is that NZ is a market of 5.3 million people with a small economy and limited means to grow income to ensure that we can at least retain the game or further grow the game further in NZ. I mean given the current market/geographical location/size etc - what alternatives does NZ rugby actually have?
ScottD
Roar Guru
Yes mate I agree. Though to get the RA top up you lock yourself into having to spend the whole 100% salary cap not (say) 90%. If you haven't got that extra $500k every year then you have to source it from somewhere. It doesn't sound like much but over 10 years it's $5m. Offsetting that is the fact that if you don't win then it is harder to get corporate support and to be successful you need the best players. It's a dirty little circle of death.
ScottD
Roar Guru
All true mate and I don't have the answer to that. But when you are staring down the barrel of bankruptcy (which we now know they clearly were all through 2023), chasing high profile players that require you to stump up the big $$ before you can get a RA top up, and thereby spending the full salary cap is a questionable decision. And yes I do agree that the difference between 90% and 100% of the salary cap is only $500k , but its $500k they didn't have. And my point on the sponsorship isn't so much that it would have been available for general operating costs (because we don't know), it is more that if you seek and obtain it for the purposes of directing it towards a salary war, then you guarantee that it isn't available for general operating costs because you never were in a position to ask the question. The nuance around that is important I think.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
That is not a great step, that is the PE investment. The PE investor's shareholding is in the commercial rights (revenue) of NZ rugby. All of the income goes into this company, which pays the direct costs of earning it, and distributes the profit, about 5% to PE and 95% to NZR. The makeup of the board looks like it is controlled by NZR but all of the activities will be approved, with restrictions against anything else, within the commercial contracts with the PE investor. Whether this is an upwards or downwards turning point for NZ rugby should be evident in that five years, but it is dependent on generating a lot more revenues against the downward trend in interest. The ongoing BS created by these structures clouds everyone's thinking. The governance review is premised on NZR valued as a $3.7bn organisation, based on the PE valuation. This is a valuation of perpetual future revenues, unencumbered by liabilities, all operational expenses and its obligations to the health of rugby. RA and NZRU are supposedly NFP entities which break even over time because surpluses are invested back in the game. You might assign a small valuation to NZRU as it usually carries a cash surplus forward, and has a proven track record of being able to generate annual surpluses. Australian rugby is of course worth nothing as it mainly makes losses. The common prayer for a white night to invest in the game to repay its liabilities and incur annual losses is a pipedream fantasy.
Muglair
Roar Rookie
Scott, that assumes that the corporate was prepared to tip the money into the general expense pool. Sometimes the franchise might want a marquee foreign player, or need to pay overs against the RA offer to lure a player to an underperforming or unfashionable state. Matt Giteau and Firepower is a great example of that, and also how badly it can go wrong when the 3rd party fails or reneges. Alternatively a sponsor might desire to have its own sponsorship arrangement with players. Greg Inglis at Souths is an example.
Objective Observer
Roar Rookie
Jack, There may be 300,000 but they mostly live off the Tax paid by your fellow Australians not from a real economy. The Wallabies you claim mostly came from NSW or QLD, like the ACT economy you are living off others hard work. That’s why a combined outfit playing out of Melb makes so much sense.
ScottD
Roar Guru
Geoff, Who actually are the main shareholders of the organisation that owns (or used to own if RA has taken the licence) the Rebels licence?
ScottD
Roar Guru
I agree Geoff. I do think the overall list has improved and consistency of the player group will indeed enable a better starting platform. Others such as TWAS disagree on the improvement of the squad. Frankly he could be right and we will see. In any event, the point that is being ignored on that front is that as players and squads get better, salary pressure increases. As far as I am concerned I don't much care about the big signings as I do about where the total money is coming from and where it is going. No team will win if all they have is five big signings and there is no depth. Remember that this conversation started with me stating that the issues being raised by Doctor should be discussed not dismissed. I am not missing anything in this discussion except the fact that there is not an actual discussion - just people defending their club and endlessly debating a very narrow topic rather than a coherent and thoughtful conversation. We need to stop that and start having a rational discussion about the whole funding issue. RA top ups, third party payments, where sponsorship is being sourced and where it is spent etc etc etc. In my view these subjects aren't divisible because as I keep saying, the funding bucket is finite. If we spend more money on players salaries then we need to spend less on cub administration, flights and other costs. If RA gets a big Melbourne based sponsor then that sponsor is less likely to be able to fund Vic Rugby etc etc. The players that get RA top ups like Taniela may well be worth it, but the club has to pay a minimum amount before RA steps in, and then RA has to stump up the cash and then TPA's get used which means that those supporters can't fund other programs. It is all linked and that is what you and others seem to be ignoring.
Slim 293
Roar Rookie
Hey Jimbo, a men's jersey from the Brumbies' store will only set you back $99. That's a pretty good deal compared to some of the other teams. :thumbup:
CW Moss
Roar Rookie
That would cost the Rebels Chairman, reportedly, a big loss if they went bankrupt. I hope the Rebels make the semis and do a Force-style comeback.
jeznez
Roar Guru
Thanks Lomax. That’s better than I feared. Without an official announcement I was worried it was on top of the Ares Capital facility
Geoff Parkes
Expert
Great post ozinsa.
Geoff Parkes
Expert
Thanks for the post, Merro.
Geoff Parkes
Expert
Thanks for posting Gary. It's a terrible shame that rugby missed this opportunity. With that knowledge, it would be criminal if the same thing is allowed to happen in Melbourne.
Geoff Parkes
Expert
The piece you're missing Scott is that it isn't about a few names on a piece of paper. Why the Rebels will be better this year is partly because they have added a couple of high quality players (notwithstanding the ones they have lost). The player argument is actually more about how the quality of the lower half of their list has improved. But by far the biggest reason is because the coaches and the squad have another year under their belt, their TWI is improving, they are fitter, they have more self-belief about their style of play... which all adds up to a higher launching pad at the start of the season.
ScottD
Roar Guru
I'm not sure that's the issue. The fact is simply that they keep spending more than they earn. Getting 2000 more people to each game doesn't really fix that problem. The only real fix is to spend less and to obtain more corporate support. After 13 years you would think they would have good handle on the likely corporate support channels so doesn't it seem likely that the corporate support doesn't exist? If it doesn't exist then no rugby team at SR level can exist. A harsh reality unfortunately but I don't see another one, do you?