0
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/down_dis.png)
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/up_dis.png)
TONY SMITH
Last updated 12:22, April 12 2016
OPINION: It's tempting to put the boot into Australian rugby when it's down but we shouldn't be gloating.
The ARU's financial woes could have ramifications for the entire Super Rugby competition.
Australian Rugby Union chief executive Bill Pulver has just announced a $10.8m loss for 2015.
The ARU have haemorrhaged almost $35m since 2011.
They've only been in the black once since then - in 2013 when the British and Irish Lions tour led to a $21.6m profit.
The Australians are paying the price for propping up the Melbourne Rebels franchise.
It's a tough job trying to make a buck in the Melbourne sporting market where AFL reigns supreme, the Melbourne Storm have created a niche and the two A-League football franchises attract significant support.
Last year the ARU had to pump in $6 million to keep the Rebels afloat - up from $3.6 million in 2014.
National rugby unions always budgeted for reduced revenue in Rugby World Cup years so the ARU's 2015 deficit was hardly a shock.
Pulver had warned in October 2014 it could run out of cash in 2015 and technically be insolvent.
But, by contrast, New Zealand Rugby (NZR) managed to make a modest $373,000 profit in 2015, down 86 per cent on their $2.5 million surplus the year before.
NZR has the advantage of number one sport status, albeit in a smaller market than Australia, but it also struggled to balance the books between 2008 and 2012 when consecutive losses were posted.
Australian rugby is battling to match AFL, rugby league and the A-League for public support, a situation not helped by the fact Super Rugby matches and games in the weak Australian Rugby
Competition state championship have been broadcast exclusively on pay television.
Pulver is basically doing his best "don't panic" impression by stating the new Super Rugby broadcasting deal will inject another $37.6 million a year into Australian rugby between 2016 and 2020.
That should be enough to balance the books, but Australia needs to seed its grassroots by building stronger foundations at club level and improving its national rugby competition, which is a pale shadow of South Africa's or New Zealand's.
It's not that long ago that the ARU billed its grassroots clubs teams $200 a pop to extricate itself from the mire so it owes the amateur arm of the game.
Over the years the ARU have done a sterling job in retaining its top talent.
Fewer Australians than Kiwis seem to seek fame and fortune overseas, perhaps because there's been lots of loot at home (journeyman Wallaby Quade Cooper was reportedly earning $A800,000 a year before his move to Toulon).
But lifestyle has also been a factor. Who in their right mind would want to swap Sydney or Brisbane for the a season slogging through English mud?
But the trickle of talent overseas could turn into a flood if the ARU have to find more savings.
They've already reduced test match payments from $A13,000 per game to $A10,000, but have still managed to dig deep enough to keep world class backrower David Pocock through to the 2019 Rugby World Cup.
But if there's less money available at home, the more mercenary minded Australian players might be increasingly tempted to join Top 14 clubs in France or cashed-up outfits in Japan.
Why should Kiwis care? Basically, because when Australian rugby is strong, New Zealand rugby is even stronger.
Australia struggles to field five Super Rugby teams now. What would it be like if they lose more top men overseas?
Weaker Australian teams would impact on the standard of the Australasian conference, which is head and shoulders better than the South African equivalents.
Would Kiwi fans still flock to our stadiums to watch the Waratahs without the likes of Israel Folau or a Brumbies side missing its top men?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/o...ys-cash-crisis
80 Minutes, 15 Positions, No Protection, Wanna Ruck?
Ruck Me, Maul Me, Make Me Scrum!
Education is Important, but Rugby is Importanter!
That can't be right. The Australian media would have us believe that the Force is the major drain on the finances not the Rebels.
one of the comments for that article was actually calling for the Rebels to be shut down.
Think what the Force could do with $6million
2 or 3 years ago - ARU gave the Rebels 10 Million bucks
Exile
Sydney
"Pain heels. Chicks dig scars and Glory lasts forever." Shane Falco
The answer to the question at the end of that article has to be "hell yes!" doesn't it? Surely they don't give a stuff who the Aussie players or teams are; just that NZ win?!!!
Proudly Western Australian; Proudly supporting Western Australian rugby
Same old, same old![]()
Japan and the Pacific Islands for Aussie Super 9's!
Let's have one of these in WA! Click this link: Saitama Super Arena - New Perth Stadium?
Chuck Norris has the greatest Poker-Face of all time. He won the 1983 World Series of Poker, despite holding only a Joker, a Get out of Jail Free Monopoly card, a 2 of clubs, 7 of spades and a green #4 card from the game Uno.
Interesting that somebody more impartial fingers the elephant in the room bleeding the ARU white. The Rebels. But the ARU is broke and so is the model of governance. What has to happen is the ARU be allowed to go belly up and a football Australia type response. With the government involved in setting up the new governing body and a centralised contracting system and salary cap in place. Which would ultimately benefit the force.
Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate
Didn't the ARU have to change parts of their governance structure a few years ago to meet criteria for Federal funding grants?
I thought they had to in order to get " punding for the limpics"
They did go through with it and the board now has a different makeup than it did before.
The number of board members is now based on the number of players in that region and if there is a super rugby team associated with that region.
1 for each super rugby team
1 for over 20,000 registered players.
(I'm doing all this from memory, which is dodgy at the best of times)
where as before there was 1 representative for all states other than NSW (3) and QLD (2) (total of 6) now there is 1 from WA, 1 from VIC, 1 from the ACT, 2 from NSW (1 rugby team, 1 20K+ players) and 2 from QLD. (total of 7)
I think.
maybe
if my memory can be trusted at all
which it can't
My memory of that is a bit sketchy too; but IIRC there were also some independant directors to be appointed. Also an independant chairman(?).
"The main difference between playing League and Union is that now I get my hangovers on Monday instead of Sunday - Tom David
And they now have a woman on the board too if I remember rightly! Anne Sherry??
Proudly Western Australian; Proudly supporting Western Australian rugby