Why was the ARC canned?

[RuckNMaul]

no mate, if im not getting paid im not listening to the same old rants

this thread is about the ARC no?
The AUSTRALIAN RUGBY CHAMPIONSHIP, why wolud you want to become a hangeron to NZRU?

the simple fact is more teams = More debt ther fore as NSWRU had the most teams they in all fairness will have a larger chunk of losses

why would we think you were Peth Bashing?
how about you take your own advice and and if you dont want to see the Force/Spirit/RWA moving forward take you opinions back to canada as this is the Western Force SUPPORTERS Site

[innocent quokka]

But the bottom line is that those matches at Leichardt are to appease the die hard Balmain fans. Wests Tigers actually lose financially because of a lack of corporate interest when they play there according to CEO Steve Noyce. But, for the moment at least, they are willing to invest in this nostalgic trip back to the old trible days of the "Sydney comp" to keep the punters happy. If nothing else it allows Phil Gould to crap on about how much he loves Sunday afternoon at the footy.

ah Phil Gould ... bee sting face. can't stand the bastard.

I hear what you're saying, and maybe I've just been brainwashed by his incessant rantings, but this:



will always look way better and create more of a sense of 'I want to go next time' than an empty stadium. I'm starting to think the more seats available to a crowd, the more they spread out, and the less atmosphere there is. Conversely, the more you pack people in and limit the seating, coupled with a highly entertaining game (and I believe the ARC games were very entertaining), the more atmosphere you have. While the ARC were wise to keep all the fans on one side of the stadium (thus packing them together), they were on the wrong side, so the cameras were looking at the empty side.

(I also realise that this would either mean having the cameras pointing into the sun which gives terrible exposures, or having the crowd sit on the sunny side and spend the arvo shielding their eyes and getting sunburnt. Hence why I'm in agreement with the smaller stadium theory.)

It's really all about creating repeat sales. Give people one really great day at the rugby and they'll look forward to going to the next game.

[frontrow]

Bee sting face, love that one...
What about Lauries snoz, it looks smaller than it used to...

[innocent quokka]

haha, Laurie growing his fringe long to hide his receeding hairline is pretty funny too.

[waratahjesus]

no mate, if im not getting paid im not listening to the same old shit

this thread is about the ARC no?
The AUSTRALIAN RUGBY CHAMPIONSHIP, why the fuck wolud you want to become a hangeron to NZRU?

the simple fact is more teams = More debt ther fore as NSWRU had the most teams they in all fairness will have a larger chunk of losses

why would we think you were Peth Bashing?
how about you take your own advice and and if you dont want to see the Force/Spirit/RWA moving forward take you opinions back to canada as this is the Western Force SUPPORTERS Site

hangeron? i think i was supporting the idea of merging it with the nzru to become a more viable competition! less teams in nz + teams from australia = biggers supporter base =more money, its not freakin rocket science!

i do wanna see rugby in the country move forward, thats why im saying maybe we should get the comp going strong and then include perth (&melbourne) when the comp becomes more viable, just like the afl did, just like the nrl are doing (& tried to do in perth), it makes sense to have a structure to build on rather than just throw something out there!

just because perth exists doesnt mean its the greatest thing for rugby in australia, its the greatest thing for rugby in perth (and perth deserves to have a team) but to say not including perth in third string comp is anti australian rugby is a very stringy argument, they need to be included but not including perth (& melbourne) will greatly reduce start up costs and allow for a competition to get off the ground! thats my opinion!

i will head back to canada were people with there own agenda dont have inflated egos of there own time! (congrats on having a job mate, im sure the whole family is proud of you!)

(and please edit or delete your swearing, kids read these boards! its offensive!!!)

[Moses]

how was a semi professional competition featuring displaced players from the eastern seaboard and a few from perth going to make money?

I'm not convinced that it should make money. The Sheffield Shield runs at a huge loss, they have a few hundred people show up over 5 days of cricket yet Cricket Australia realise that there's more to feeder competitions than profit. By continuing to run a strong domestic comp, they have kept the National team strong who have in turn generated revenue to fund the lower levels.

I don't see why rugby should be different. Take a hit at ARC and club level and pay for it with revenue from the Super14/International money spinners.

[jargan83]

The Sheffield Shield runs at a huge loss, they have a few hundred people show up over 5 days of cricket yet Cricket Australia realise that there's more to feeder competitions than profit. By continuing to run a strong domestic comp

Shield games are 4 days not 5, only the final is 5 days. The domestic comp has been further subsidised by Foxsports purchasing the tv rights to it. I'm not saying that the price they paid for them is comparable to the AFL or NRL, but it brings more money to Cricket and apparently rates fairly well.

Unfortunately the ARU by cancelling the ARC indicated it wasn't willing to cop it on the chin financially. They should have expected bigger loses in the "start up" phase of the comp?

That or the idea never ocurred to them.

Was foxsports not intested in the ARC or did they deliberately sell them to the ABC??
Posted via Mobile Device

[BLR]

Unfortunately the ARU by cancelling the ARC indicated it wasn't willing to cop it on the chin financially. They should have expected bigger loses in the "start up" phase of the comp?

That or the idea never ocurred to them.

Was foxsports not intested in the ARC or did they deliberately sell them to the ABC??
Posted via Mobile Device

Or at least that's what they told us, the sheer mishandling of the whole comp points more towards an attitude of jealousy by O'Neill that it wasn't his brilliant idea to start up a provincial comp, because we all know how he likes to be seen as the brilliant messiah behind the ARU.

[laura]

You want facts and figures Moses & Waratahjesus: Well this was of great difficulty to find, it took me a whole 2 minutes!

Analysis:
Australian Rugby - Annual Report 2007

It states the ARC had a budgeted deficit of $2.6million and a reported deficit of $8.4million

Report:
http://www.rugby.com.au/AnnualReport...ial-Report.pdf
The ARC had an operating expenditure of $5,484,000
There was a provision of $2,649,000 for the ARC as a doubtful debt on page 19 which (if I'm reding it correctly) states that there are loans to be repayed by QRU***, South Australia RU, ACT Rugby Union, New South Wales Rugby Union***, Northern Territory Rugby Union, Tasmanian Rugby Union & Victorian Rugby Union***

***During 2007 the Company established the Australian Rugby Championships. The Company provided interest free loans of $2,649,000 to participating Unions where required and has provided against these loans.

[Moses]

You're right on the 4 day for normal games, still if a rugby game needs a ground for 3 hours and the cricket needs it for 36 there's going to be greater costs.

Foxsports only show the Shield Final and the One Day/T20 comps. The only coverage of the Sheffield Shield is an update every few overs on cricket.com.au

[Moses]

You want facts and figures Moses & Waratahjesus: Well this was of great difficulty to find, it took me a whole 2 minutes!

The twf posters are the ones bringing up figures as some sort of proof of NSW ineptitude, the burden of proof is on them, not WJ and myself who have been trying to discuss a 3rd tier of rugby in this country.

Analysis:
Australian Rugby - Annual Report 2007

It states the ARC had a budgeted deficit of $2.6million and a reported deficit of $8.4million

Report:
http://www.rugby.com.au/AnnualReport...ial-Report.pdf
The ARC had an operating expenditure of $5,484,000
There was a provision of $2,649,000 for the ARC as a doubtful debt on page 19 which (if I'm reding it correctly) states that there are loans to be repayed by QRU***, South Australia RU, ACT Rugby Union, New South Wales Rugby Union***, Northern Territory Rugby Union, Tasmanian Rugby Union & Victorian Rugby Union***

***During 2007 the Company established the Australian Rugby Championships. The Company provided interest free loans of $2,649,000 to participating Unions where required and has provided against these loans.

Seems strange they'd give money to Tasmania, NT and SA who didn't have teams and omit WA who did have a team!

[RuckNMaul]

Point taken on the offensive material but you are realy grinding my gears as much as im obviously grinding yours

i do wanna see rugby in the country move forward, thats why im saying maybe we should get the comp going strong and then include perth (&melbourne) when the comp becomes more viable, just like the afl did, just like the nrl are doing (& tried to do in perth), it makes sense to have a structure to build on rather than just throw something out there!

do you think the Shute Sheild community would embrace a Perth or Melbourne team joining there comp?
or merging with the qld comp (trinity?)

[laura]

The twf posters are the ones bringing up figures as some sort of proof of NSW ineptitude, the burden of proof is on them, not WJ and myself who have been trying to discuss a 3rd tier of rugby in this country.

This is true, but it is you and Moses who keep bringing it all up over and over again and keep this arguement going for days, yet dont bother to find any actual figures to give your arguement credit. The people who say "believe me" in this thread should be believed.
As there is no RugbyWA financial report for 2007 available yet, all figures have to be based on the 2007 ARU report.

[RuckNMaul]

the whole fingerpointing /who spent the most argument would be better off forgotten and as i posted yesterday how about we look at positives from the ARC and how we would imagine a national comp taking form in Australia

eg;
2009:
1) Merge NSW and QLD comps as these are obviously the strongest club comps in the nation
2) More games between the existing franchises and acadamies as curtin raisers post S14/pre 3N

2010
1) Introduction of RWA and ACTRU Academy sides to comp derived from NSWRU/QRU Merger

any suggestions?

[jargan83]

You're right on the 4 day for normal games, still if a rugby game needs a ground for 3 hours and the cricket needs it for 36 there's going to be greater costs.

Foxsports only show the Shield Final and the One Day/T20 comps. The only coverage of the Sheffield Shield is an update every few overs on cricket.com.au

I'm well aware of what cricket they show, or by heading down to the ground for those Shield updates.

I'm not familiar with the costs of the grounds, i know that the WACA is actually owned by the WA Cricket Association. Obviously any ground costs are met with the money handed out from Cricket Australia though

The ARU were too quick to can the ARC, and i reckon the whole John O'Neil vs Gary Flowers thing didn't help. I agree with your earlier point that the national body should have made their money on the Super/International rights to fund a national comp like the ARC. If Cricket can do it, why can't Rugby??
Posted via Mobile Device