My view is the domestic competition could commence in October (holding byes and night matches during the worst heat of summer).
Emerging players could get game time in Spring, before locally based Wallabies return for the Autumn run into finals. While not ideal, this approach is better placed than NRC to be cost recovered through broadcast and ticket revenues, and presents an opportunity to attract NRL spectators in their off season.

How can their governance structure not require auditing or reporting?
One of my frustrations is that only Tahs, Reds and Brums report, so you can never tell the real financial story of the Rebels and Force.
Same is true of the NZ clubs.

Yeah there is no right or wrong answer, only options with tradeoffs. What we need is a transparent review so smarter people than us can properly consider this all and set a path forward.

As I commented below, I think there are reasons why quality and fan base has declined since we had 3 teams and I fear it is too late to go back without a large cash injection to help compete with Europe and Japan for players.

SR AU or 4-team SRP both have pros and cons but for me I lean towards the model that creates more rugby in Australia rather than less. 4 teams may boost results short term but I fear it will hurt results long term as we erode the playing and fan base.

Either way, our current model of overspending in the hope a winning team will pay off the debt in the future is putting RA in the same position as the Rebels.

You mention the Sailor/Rogers/Tuiqiri era but like Suaalii, they were expensive signings and had minimal impact on RA revenues, rising from $58m in 2001 to $61m in 2002 when they joined, and not dropping following their departures in 2006 and 2009.

Finding more Twiggys is one option but I think we need to have a model that is viable in its own right.

Again, no right or wrong, but on balance I think we need a change.

Yeah I suspect it is a bit of both: They have ideas of people they would like to see appointed and the path they want to go down, but want to wider voting and so can’t guarantee everything will land where they are proposing.
I agree things could definitely get worse, especially if their approach just leads to states arguing and pushing their angle.

Yeah Aus going domestic won’t benefit NZ, and so wouldn’t happen until 2030.
I also look back fondly on 90s and 00s SR but the reality was the financial gap between SR and AFL/NRL/Top14/ERC/JRLO etc was far smaller then. So top players didn’t have as big an incentive to pursue other options and were happy to sit on the bench. This is no longer the case.

Further to my response to LRO above re. a domestic comp, realistically the quality will be between NRC and SRP.
Our player budget is considerably lower than in NZ, and trying to compete is driving nearly every Australian club and RA broke.
If we are to spend within our means, we need to let more players go overseas while still being Wallabies eligible.
The question is how we do this in a manner that ensures pathways and makes an entertaining and commercially viable product domestically.

We can live within our means with 3 teams but I am not sure it will increase our SRP or Wallabies wins.
Fewer teams playing in Aus means lower audiences and broadcast revenues. It won’t be a one-for-one drop given NSW and Qld are the largest markets, but we can’t assume the remaining clubs could outbid Europe and NRL for the top players from the disbanded clubs.
Rather, we would shrink our audience base and lose 40% of our wallabies player base, some dropping to club rugby but many going overseas or NRL. Fewer places also discourages new players coming through the ranks, driving them to NRL.
Conversely, the 2021 SR AU grand final turnout of 40,000 suggests crowds would support a top tier domestic comp, so it should be able to hold a decent broadcast revenue.
Initially, salary caps would need to be lower to be financially viable and top players more spread across teams. But an end-of-season State-of-Origin series (possibly including Trans-Tasman teams) can build connections into the Test window.
This would see the aggregation you are looking for, but with a larger footprint, more Wallabies pathways, and more domestic rivalries / wins driving turnout.

It would need to fit broadly into the current financial footprint to be sustainable.
2021 SR AU grand final turnout of 40,000 suggests crowds would support a top tier domestic comp, so it should be able to hold a decent broadcast revenue. The problem with ARC/NRC is they were 3rd tier and noone cared.
Expanding to 8 teams would require lower salary caps and top players would be more spread across teams. But an end-of-season State-of-Origin or Trans-Tasman series can build connections into the Test window.

Just thinking, from the consortium’s perspective wouldn’t it actually be better to let the existing Rebels liquidate, then acquire the license off RA?
Creditors would lose out but the consortium could then acquire the Rebels team without the debt. They would also lose the back of house systems and staff but they could leverage their Western United back of house for this.
Then again, there is no guarantee RA wouldn’t just stick with 4 teams and refuse to offer up the license.

Profitability is never guaranteed but they at least have a proposal that could keep the team viable in a low demand market. It is good for Australian rugby to have a more sustainable SR presence in Melbourne.

My take on the proposal was that having Rebels and Western United in Tarneit aims to boost traffic and returns for the owners’ 100,000 sqm town centre and housing complex.

Therefore, so long as the team losses remain less than the value uplift from their commercial land, it is a good investment to subsidise the teams and drive growth to the area. Also the marginal cost of hosting Rebels will be lower if the stadium is already mostly underwritten by Western United revenues.

Spending beyond our means is a perennial problem for RA and SR clubs.
This whole saga shows the Bradford City AFC model doesn’t work. They spent big in the late 90s to make it to the Premier League, hoping new revenues would materialise and pay off their debt. Only they didn’t and went into administration…
I’m hopeful for the new western Melbourne proposal, as it doesn’t need the Rebels to be profitable for the owners to make money from it. It is an innovative model.

Agreed, then go out to tender for potential clubs to join.
Make sure they have a good business plan and financial backing.

A good example of how not to grow sustainably.
I think the Rebels were following the Bradford City AFC model, where they spent big in the late 90s to get into the Premier League, only to not make it and go into administration.
I’m hopeful for the new western Melbourne proposal, as it doesn’t need the Rebels to be profitable for the owners to make money from it. It is an innovative model.

I understand the sentiment but I don’t see how less teams will make a stronger wallabies? It would simply make a smaller player pool for the wallabies to be selected from.
As for the Brumbies, so long as they are financially viable (which they have been to date but sound shaky this year..) they are growing the game by offering professional contracts and development opportunities for another 30+ players.
If 3/4 of players are from NSW and QLD, it makes sense the ratio is about the same for SR players overall.
I’m not sure if moving the Brumbies will solve rugby’s woes either. Rebels and Force show that moving to a large city doesn’t necessarily lead to larger crowds than the Brumbies have now, or improved profitability.
So I see your argument, I just don’t see the Brumbies, or their removal, as solving rugby’s decline.

Yeah I know they say to move to the broader community getting a vote. But the caretaker board sounds very parochial and I don’t see why they will agree to open up voting further or how this group will agree on a solution for Australian rugby.

Agreed.
More generally, social license requires people to either think the outcome was fair (“I got my way”), or that the process was fair (“I’m not happy that I didn’t get my way but I can understand on balance why they thought another option was best”).
If 2/3 people think we are heading in the wrong direction, clearly RA consultation isn’t satisfying either.

Sorry I can’t quite tell which message you are replying to.
My take on their 9 page letter and some further discussion is above.

Sorry I don’t quite follow you.
Are you saying either SOARR is hoping fans imagine they have a solution or SOARR do have a solution and have drunk their own kool-aid?
My take is they want fans to have a say in governance voting and they want a full review to properly develop a path forward for rugby in Australia, which may not land exactly where they proposed but it needs to be a transparent process.
I broadly agree with this. My concern is who sits on the caretaker board, which risks being very parochial and not actually agreeing on a solution.

Yeah that is fair, those have been good initiatives.
I think I am looking for a plan to reverse declining participation and crowds, and reverse the declining financial sustainability of RA and SR clubs. I think SOARR have at least acknowledged the need to do a review in this space.
Given NZ has a player budget over $10m greater than AU, I think trying to compete is what is driving us broke.
I personally think investing in grass roots while moving to SR AU is very marketable for broadcasters and fans.
Harry has previously commented that fans are drawn by quality of play, deeply felt rivalry and suspense.
I think SR AU would improve the first two but reduce quality in the short term, especially if the salary cap tightens. But judging by SR AU’s grand final crowd of 40k, I still think this is a net gain, would drive more fans and is more marketable domestically than a competition where AU teams inevitably lose. And it would be financially sustainable, allowing it to grow and improve quality over time.
No easy solutions, but we need to seriously review the future of Australian rugby.

It would be good to ask prospective directors this question also. See how they will grow the game in a tight financial environment.

Yeah payment is the hard part but SOARR do outline their proposal, which mostly comes down to reducing administrative costs and player costs.
They propose reducing player payments and moving to the South African model of top players staying Wallabies eligible when going overseas where there are the funds to properly develop them. I consider this should be paired with a domestic SR AU with salary cap that prevents clubs and RA going broke trying to keep up with NZ.
There is no ideal solution but some big calls need to be made to be financially sustainable. SOARR are proposing something while I’m not hearing anything from RA.

The Chair and 5 directors collectively receive $180k. So it is probably about $25k each director and $55k for the Chair?
The role only requires them to meet a few time per year. The CEO actually runs the company full time.

Yeah the overall debate seems to have shifted generally from:
– 2012 “An independent board will save us”, to
– 2024 “A less independent board will save us”.

I think governance is primarily a means to an ends. Regardless of who leads it, what we need is RA to change their approach and improve Australian rugby. I’m not sure the current Board is taking us where we need to go, but I also don’t know that returning to a parochial board will be better.

As for SOARR’s proposal to actually improve the game, yesterday I posted my understanding of their 9 page letter (below). I don’t necessarily agree with it all but I think it is on the right track.
Focus on development pathways:
• Increase funding for community rugby.
• Reintroduce sports foundations and programs targeting school competitions.
• Ensure youth pathways focus on increasing game time for developing players.
• Improve connection between clubs, players and elite teams.
• Centralise design for programs and systems then have clubs and unions deliver.
• Improve coach education systems and blueprint.
• Maintain the existing 5 Super teams and national footprint.
• Ultimately add a semi-professional tier.
Encourage spectators:
• Ensure club and super fixtures don’t conflict.
• Review laws to speed up the game.
Fund this pathway investment through cost reductions in administration and professional players:
• Conduct a forensic analysis of unnecessary costs, including through Super teams and Wallabies and reducing player payments to an affordable level.
• Accept some players will go overseas but make them Wallabies eligible (South African model).
• Introduce a future fund to come out of RWC 2027 (while accepting the ship may have already sailed and it will simply pay down debt)
Increase diversity of thinking:
• Amend the Constitution to ensure a more open board nomination process with alternative candidates provided for member agreement.
• Introduce community advisory committees to bring in more diverse ideas.

Agreed.
The 2024 State of Rugby Union survey showed 2/3 of people still think rugby in Australia is heading in the wrong direction. This is not a fringe issue.
People are switching off because of ‘tv subscription fees’, ‘Australian teams always lose’, and ‘Super Rugby is a poor competition’.
Despite what Herbert said, SOARR did actually offer solutions which he should respond to, rather than trying to discredit the messenger.

Yeah I think that so long as someone starts the process of change, I’m not as concerned who it is.
I think the changes you mention are a good start but I’m mindful they only scratch the surface of what change is actually needed. I hope they take on more of SOARR’s proposals for advancing rugby in Australia and run with it.