JO'N - 'This is a long-haul turnaround … there is no short-term fix'

well my opinion is that money speaks, and IMO the easiest and best way to set up a comp would be to license a franchise to a certain area. So lets say the ARU is in control and they say we want to have 2 teams in Brisbane, one on the south side and one on the north side, consortiums will come forward but there will be prerequisites of access to a training field and facilities, a 5'000 capacity ground, $500'000 in reserves and a sponsorship package, but a clause which states that the board for the new team requires a representative from each club in the said region to have a member present.

From there the best package based on factors including players, training facilities, corporate plan and funding will be chosen, we could see some of the wealthier clubs back themselves, but there could also be the chance that wealthy benefactors come to the party and form a agreement with clubs to fund the team but use the clubs facilities.

In the Perth Spirit case, we could see the WARU provide the support, similarly in ACT and VRU, but in Brisbane and Sydney i imagine we would see the wealthier clubs will formulate there own bids and in most cases allign themselves with a consortium of some kind.

As long as the process is fair and even, it will be a case of the best package winning, if a team isnt wealthier enough or lacked the ability to put together a bid, then tough luck, with the regional franchising it also means that the ARU can license a bid for Western Sydney, if Penrity/Parra are unable to support it then the NSWRU could step it, althernatively the ARU could step in for the benefit of the game.

Yeah, I don't really see WA, ACT or Vic being a problem - life gets well easy when it is one team, one location, underpinned by a Super team.

It really is all about finding the best outcome for NSW and Q'ld. Based on recent events, a bid process probably would be the most likely outcome but the S15 bid process doesn't exactly inspire confidence. If that showed anything, it was that if you get two or three bids for a given location they subsequently can't or won't work together. It is likely that Sydney Uni would post a bid, for instance. If they won, I doubt Easts, Randwick and Souths would all get in behind the new team when they weren't involved, wouldn't really benefit and themselves supported another bid. Even more likely is perhaps some third party coming in and throwing money around, involving none of the clubs and giving basically the same outcome as last time.

Still, you could probably go through the same process if the team was the property of the Premier clubs. Various consortia could offer their bids and tout their benefits, but ultimately they would be buying their involvement off the Premier clubs rather than the ARU. Even those clubs that weren't wealthy enough or lacked the ability to do it themselves would get something out of it, and after all it is them (or their region) that the team would supposedly represented. I'd really worry about the ARU taking a "one size fits all" approach, 'cos it just won't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyS

I'd really worry about the ARU taking a "one size fits all" approach, 'cos it just won't.

---

That's my assumption - although with differing set ups like that you would then need frameworks in place to ensure that one "size" doesn't get an unfair leg up on the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyS

Still, you could probably go through the same process if the team was the property of the Premier clubs. Various consortia could offer their bids and tout their benefits, but ultimately they would be buying their involvement off the Premier clubs rather than the ARU. Even those clubs that weren't wealthy enough or lacked the ability to do it themselves would get something out of it, and after all it is them (or their region) that the team would supposedly represented. I'd really worry about the ARU taking a "one size fits all" approach, 'cos it just won't.

---

im basing my opinion on a pretty indepth knowledge into a few of the Brisbane Premier Grade Clubs, and whilst nostalgic as it might seem to say giving equal share of a team is the way to go, the management and leadership at a premier grade level is lacking in many circumstances already.

It also has to be noted that giving a team to the clubs is as much a burden as it is a asset, the amount of clubs turning losses in the australian landscape is quite high(a-league, nrl, s14 and afl), giving a club a percentage ownership in a professional team IMO doesnt achieve a whole lot, many premier grade clubs are still run by part-time staff and adding something like a percentage share of a 'ARC' team is only going to increase the premier grade costs.

On top of that, its a unecomincal concept to think that a consortium is going to buy a share of a new franchise off a club that actually hasnt produced anything. Its in my opinion that funding for new teams is going to be that short that adding in something like suggested is only going to be a additional cost. Cost is exactly the issue which needs to be addressed after the ARC and more recently the GFC.

You did mention that some clubs marginalised if another team in the region were the succesful bidder, yes thats always going to happen regardless of the outcome, it is however slightly addressed by enforcing the placement of those club members on the new board. More or less a token gesture, but it does present a opportunity to reduce the angst between the clubs and it provides a voice to those players who are going to be called up from other clubs.


anyway, this is becoming a rather tedious discussion and it could go on forever, so i dont think im going to reply anymore

Some very good points. Perhaps the clubs as equal "owners" is poor phrasing and it should be the clubs more as equal "licensors". Subject to various conditions it would be they (rather than the ARU) that would decide who was to represent their region, and good luck to them if they also managed to negotiate something to their immediate or long term advantage.

But point taken on the discussion. I suppose I carry these things on against the incredibly remote possibility that somehow, somewhere it might spark something with someone that matters. Lottery winning levels of unlikely I know, but perhaps it is an attempt to drown out what I actually consider the most likely outcome - that Moses won't appear off the mountain with a plan to save us all. If he ever existed he was probably quietly drowned in the bullrushes by rugby politics, and the mountain has been strip-mined into a slag heap.

In the absence of vision and leadership, what we will get is pragmatism and accountancy. The overriding priorities will be Test and Super rugby, because they are the only real revenue sources for the sport. While the extent to which costs can be cut and the professional game grown will be explored, the inevitable push will be to find alternate funding sources and the most obvious will be the transition of all Super teams to third party equity. This will require administrative changes so that the private equity will feel capable of protecting their interests, including constitutional reform and the complete segregation of the professional teams from the amateur game.

Super rugby will expand to the extent tolerated by the various partners, but will obviously run at least into the August window already agreed. This will then progress straight to domestic and overseas internationals, with the Australia A program reinstated when it becomes clear that using 3N, Bledisloes and home nations Tests to blood young players costs matches, support and ultimately revenue. Outside of the international sides however, the Super teams will also be being pushed to both demonstrate best efforts in generating an investor return (or at least minimise losses) as well as provide their players with development opportunities. This may take the form of sponsored overseas tours such as the Force and Brumbies took over the last couple of years or, more creatively, overseas teams might tour sponsored by the various Super teams. Each team could then do the circuit, possibly including regional matches against Aus A to give the ARU a taste. Who knows, it might be quite an engaging mix if they managed to attract a few good club teams and developing international sides. But even if nothing of the sort panned out, the need to safeguard investor interests would mean that Super Rugby players will not be sighted in amateur rugby (even if they were available early enough to matter).

So overall I'd expecting the amateur game to become increasingly isolated from the professional game. It is not that the professional game won't care, but they will be struggling for relevance themselves in a world of AFL, NRL and NH money. But the reasons won't matter; with loss of control over the professional teams and the associated political changes, the clubs will ultimately lose their clout and any ability to be part of the solution for Rugby. There will doubtless be much wailing over this and support expressed on websites by people who have no power to change things, but it won't serve any more purpose than ARC discussions.

In the meantime I howl for the same reason dogs do at the moon - I can see it, I want it, but I can't have it and I'm making noise about it. Likely I am just as ill-advised in doing so....after all, the game is in the hands of those who know all the details of the rugby landscape. I guess we'll just have to trust that they are all intent on doing the best thing for Australian Rugby.