Why was the ARC canned?

[BLR]

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

What can I say, our administrators can keep a Union from going bankrupt, that's how skilled they are.

[Moses]

My argument was never based upon financial statements, we all know that the comp ran at a loss. I'm not an accountant, though I've prepared more Balance Sheets and Income Statements that I know when someone is making stuff up.

gerry and his merry men in trying to blame the provincial competitions' failure primarily on NSW, quoted big numbers out of context as their 'evidence', which along with claims of 'creative accountants' and his having read a book apparently somehow label NSW as inept.

My argument has been that the competition's failure can't be attributed directly to NSW any more than you could blame Victoria for the Murray running dry. We no doubt contributed to a competition which did fail, but so did every other state. If you're looking for a target then Melbourne looks good considering they lost largest amount of funds.

I honestly think that a scaled back ARC would be viable, and if it still losing money then the ARU should bankroll it as an investment in future Wallabies.

[Moses]

What can I say, our administrators can keep a Union from going bankrupt, that's how skilled they are.

I think that's just Laura mis-reading the Financial Report. On page 19 only the lines with the *** after them are part of the ARC provision for bad debts. The other lines are unrelated loans to Non-current Loans to Member unions.

Te write-off of $2,649,000 was split NSW (1,133,000), VIC (1,054,000) and QLD ($462,000)

Something of note is that there is no mention of RugbyWA in the ARU's financial report, and that Rugby WA don't appear to have their financial report on their website. Perhaps they're listed as a seperate kind of entity to the other state unions.

[BLR]

Something of note is that there is no mention of RugbyWA in the ARU's financial report, and that Rugby WA don't appear to have their financial report on their website. Perhaps they're listed as a seperate kind of entity to the other state unions.

Maybe we are secretly owned by NewsCorp.

[travelling_gerry]

Come on my merry men...lets ride and steal from the rich and give to the poor.

Mose, you obviously very touchy about my original remark.

So here goes.

My opinion is that ARC failed due to NSW clubs wanting it to fail.

Further its my opinion that NSW suck more out of Australian Rugby then they deserve.

So rock on with 5 more pages of meaningless dribble about how good the Tahs are and how nasty I am.

I've got work to do.

[Cowboy]

I am not sure if NSWRU are any more or less responsible for the demise of the ARC. However, and I think this is the reason we are rather suspicious, is the Sydney clubs seemed rather delighted to see it die.

I remember a letter being read out on inside rugby from some of the clubs about half way through the super14 season in relation to the ARC and any potential replacement with words to the effect of "what we want to see is a return to the days where club rugby was the Wallaby production line just as it was for the years we won world cups in '91 and '99"
It just seems that protecting the shute shield as the next highest level of competition from super14 is their only interest and the rest of the country can go to hell.

[AndyS]

amateur and professional are two very different beasts, people wanting to play for very little money and just trying to brake even is very different from people trying to make a livelyhood out of the game!

True, but my recollection was that the ARC players got all of about $8,000 for playing and no-one was making a living out of it. It was the relocation and transport that racked up the costs, and my original observation was that the transport side of things wouldn't be much different to those for a competition like the ARS. I think you made the point about relocating players and I think it was that more than anything that stuffed the comp. The players should have been based locally - some would move for the opportunity, but that would be their choice and not a cost to the competition. There may have been some initial imbalance, but I reckon a number of young players would gravitate to the weaker teams as a chance to be scouted.

...the npc clubs in new zealand have big followings and a competitiong with good sposorship and television deals, it also has a major sponsor that is an airline and is trying to include more games against australian super rugby sides as part of a revamped competition, why shouldnt it be explored!..

Yet they are also in the process of reducing the ANZ cup to semi-professional as it is not sustainable. The new comp they are proposing would presumably be sustainable, but only because it would be intended to replace the S14, not act as the tier below.

...does playing in a rep team for six or seven weeks really develop a player, the fleet only got together a few weeks before there first game and pretty much never said hello after there last, you could argue that the club comps of nsw does more to develop and mature these players than the arc did, the arc was more just an opportunity to be scouted!

I agree with your last statement re scouting, and the fact is that club rugby is where the talent is original assessed and nurtured, as is the case across Aus...

I think it does develop the players - the comp may have been semi-pro, but the approach for the duration was entirely professional and the younger players were put alongside fully professional players. WRT the scouting, I always saw that as one of the main functions of the comp. There were a number of players identified in the ARC as being capable of stepping up to S14 and, while they may have (probably would have) been noticed at club level, it is always a big step to pull someone out of the clubs and think they are S14 ready. That was more possible out of the ARC, as the level was higher and it was easier to see the attitude they would take into a fully professional environment.

..i am sure a bucketload of Aussies would jump on the supporters bandwagon in a New Zeaeland based competition, it is a friggin awesome idea...

Yeah, well, we couldn't get a domestic third tier televised. Why would they bother with one from NZ?

I'm not convinced that it should make money. The Sheffield Shield runs at a huge loss...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.

I suspect this may be the ultimate game plan. An extended S14 takes us to the end of August, which would be easy enough to match up with the end of club rugby. Tri-Nations (and hopefully a proper Aus A program) then starts, while the rest of the players go to a new form of ARC unless they are being patched up. There they mix in a 8-10 week comp with Academy players and the best talent identified at the club level, if those players are interested and able to take the time for the chance to play at the next level. If they can get enough die-hards to watch that they manage to break-even, then great. If not, they at least have the increased revenues from the S14 expansion to fall back on. Given the timing a link to the Kiwi comps might even be possible, but I would imagine that would be all about the money.

[NTT]

i thought you werent perth bashing? but as you insist on continuing ....

there isnt enough fans for a second game, im sorry but this is crud! i think you underestimate the factor of the force having an atrocious first season in the drop of memberships, there would have been alot of people excited about having a team who were borderline fans who are only going to turn up to watch a winning side! it happens in every state in the country!

the main reason for membership numbers dropping is the second rate stadium we have to play at with its appalling view. also a lot of the fans who did not renew their 2006 memberships also realised that they could buy walk up tickets and choose where they sit instead of being stuck in shit seats. its no coincidence that the 2008 average home crowd of 23000 is also the about the same number of memberships sold in 2006, but the fact we still have more memberships sold then nsw shows there is a demand for high level rugby.

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!

why shouldnt perth be included in structuring a national comp instead of being ignored altogether? if any teams should be included at a later date it would be melbourne as perth is starting to produce some rugby talent. looking back through the spirit player profiles (RugbyWA | ET Perth Spirit Player Profiles) there were 8 players from wa club rugby who had the chance to participate in a national development comp. at the force there are currently 2 born and bred west aussies in the squad. (RugbyWA | Player Profiles). to say including perth is not the best thing for rugby in australia is nonsense. its a non argument that more opportunity for more players to ascend to the highlest level (the wallabies) is not the way forward for australian rugby. more players=more depth=higher standards=higher talent standards=stronger wallabies.

if perth profits so much and is such a viable option why arnt the NRL there?

the western reds folded because one of the situations they were faced with was they had to cover the travel and accom expenses of visiting teams. say the broncos came to perth for a nrl game. the broncos would bring over their nrl team and their u/20 team. 16 or 18 players per side plus 2 or 3 coaches a side plus 4or 5 other staff per side = up to 52 people that had to be flown across australia twice and accom for 2 to 3 days. the reds couldnt sustain this aswell as paying their own players and coaching staff.