Australian Rugby / RA

[Dan54]

Thought that only applied to Perth & only bc WA government were willing to throw a heap of cash at it?

Stop pointing out what is actually true WOB!!! And it nicely forgets that they always would have to be in Australia.

 

[Dan54]

I wouldn't be so sure. With their balls firmly in the tight silverlake grip for the foreseeable future and us about to host a BIL series and 2 world cup - our path looks better - even without a RSA tour

I agree , why does RA even bother with wanting extra tests, they are going to be flush after Lions and WC anyway aren't they?

 

[Cole]

I agree , why does RA even bother with wanting extra tests, they are going to be flush after Lions and WC anyway aren't they?

I would've thought that its because its not only a potential extra source of revenue for the code but more importantly a great opportunity to promote the code whilst also commemorating a very special day held by both countries.

 

[Strewthcobber]

I agree , why does RA even bother with wanting extra tests, they are going to be flush after Lions and WC anyway aren't they?

They should have > $100m in the bank on 1 Jan 2028.

But that isn't going to last long if they lose $10m a year because Wallaby games are the only source of revenue in the entire Australian rugby ecosystem

 

[LeCheese]

Stop pointing out what is actually true WOB!!! And it nicely forgets that they always would have to be in Australia.

Let's not be parochial here, Dan. No one outside of the negotiating parties actually knows what was proposed. If any Govt. was willing to throw cash at it, making the fixture more profitable, then that's a pretty big carrot.

However, even without knowing all the details, it's pretty apparent that NZ Rugby didn't want to play ball on what appears to be a guaranteed money-maker, and are rightly getting dragged for it on both sides of the ditch. When the game is struggling (financially and w/ engagement) both globally and in our respective backyards, it's pretty hard to justify that sort of decision.

 

[Dan54]

I would've thought that its because its not only a potential extra source of revenue for the code but more importantly a great opportunity to promote the code whilst also commemorating a very special day held by both countries.

Yep Cole, I admit that's main reason I not for it. Personal thing for me, I not comfortable using ANZAC day as a money spinner. I not against the idea of games being played on day really, just don't like it being used as the marketing tool.
As I said only personal opinion, but to me ANZAC day is more important day to both countries than other days like Good Friday etc we treat as more sancrocant. Apart from not really thinking we need more AB/Wallaby tests!

 

[Dan54]

Let's not be parochial here, Dan. No one outside of the negotiating parties actually knows what was proposed. If any Govt. was willing to throw cash at it, making the fixture more profitable, then that's a pretty big carrot.

However, even without knowing all the details, it's pretty apparent that NZ Rugby didn't want to play ball on what appears to be a guaranteed money-maker, and are rightly getting dragged for it on both sides of the ditch. When the game is struggling (financially and w/ engagement) both globally and in our respective backyards, it's pretty hard to justify that sort of decision.

And I think that was one of the reasons it got turned down, RA model needed all them to be played in Aus where the states pay big bucks for the tests, NZR didn't turn it down for any moral reasons, they would of jumped on it if the money worked for them long term I think.

 

[LeCheese]

And I think that was one of the reasons it got turned down, RA model needed all them to be played in Aus where the states pay big bucks for the tests, NZR didn't turn it down for any moral reasons, they would of jumped on it if the money worked for them long term I think.

Again, we don't know whether that was actually what was proposed, but even if it was:
a) one of the Bleds is played in Aus anyway
b) if it's a 50/50 profit sharing arrangement as reported, why would NZR not want it played in the venue that generates the most profit?

 

[Ignoto]

Dan and co, can you point to something NZRU that shows where their priorities lay in growing the game and how they achieve on doing that?

We (Australia) only see where they say No rather than where they want to grow.

 

[Dan54]

Dan and co, can you point to something NZRU that shows where their priorities lay in growing the game and how they achieve on doing that?

We (Australia) only see where they say No rather than where they want to grow.

I would hope their main priority is growing game in NZ mate. Don't get me wrong, if it benefitted NZR enough , they would take the deal. Same as RA want it because it will grow the game in Aus I assume, and they are right to do so. Australian rugby isn't a NZR dependant, so both have differing wants no doubt. I really don't think another test against Wallabies (played always in Aus) will grow game in NZ in anyway. Reason they are going for more tests against SA, more interest amongst kiwi supporters. ,I think!

Again, we don't know whether that was actually what was proposed, but even if it was:
a) one of the Bleds is played in Aus anyway
b) if it's a 50/50 profit sharing arrangement as reported, why would NZR not want it played in the venue that generates the most profit?

No we don't mate, all I know is part of the reason for it being turned down that.
What NZR says is "When you look at the financial model of doing it home and away, it's vastly different to what the Australians are proposing with their model of funding.' . So as you say we don't know details, so what are RA proposing, that makes it attractive. Remembering there are 2 parties involved, and both seem to have differing proposals?

 

[Strewthcobber]

What best explains Australian Super Rugby teams ranking 1 to 4 for set piece origin of their tries in this year's Super Rugby?

Source OptaJohnny

 

[Major Tom]

I would hope their main priority is growing game in NZ mate. Don't get me wrong, if it benefitted NZR enough , they would take the deal. Same as RA want it because it will grow the game in Aus I assume, and they are right to do so. Australian rugby isn't a NZR dependant, so both have differing wants no doubt. I really don't think another test against Wallabies (played always in Aus) will grow game in NZ in anyway. Reason they are going for more tests against SA, more interest amongst kiwi supporters. ,I think!

No we don't mate, all I know is part of the reason for it being turned down that.
What NZR says is "When you look at the financial model of doing it home and away, it's vastly different to what the Australians are proposing with their model of funding.' . So as you say we don't know details, so what are RA proposing, that makes it attractive. Remembering there are 2 parties involved, and both seem to have differing proposals?

Hmm either way you cut it, NZR were basically leading RA on, only to pull out the “not viable” line and offer no alternative ideas.
Their reasoning is lame. Super rugby could deffs pause or run without the stars for a couple of weeks (northern rugby does it for 6N). And they were going to be compensated pretty well anyways? Sounds like they just didn’t want an extra game game played in Australia. Odd as I think NZ probably gonna keep winning even if it was played on the moon! And tbh, if the wallabies did win the bled it would be the best thing for rugby and would drive more interest in NZ. I hope league and basketball continue to get more popular over there creating a bigger talent drain.