Search results

The Kiwis consistently say they want their teams to continue playing regularly against South African teams home and away. Their priority is high performance and AB preparation, not building a fan focused competition in our time zone. If they can stabilise super rugby through consolidation that...

You could even just have 6 teams playing a triple round robin to begin with. Or 6 Australian teams and a couple of others - opening it to Asia-Pacific if there's interest (Fiji would seem to be at least 1 other). I agree Trans Tasman could be great. But there's been no indication from the...

It's certainly feasible, the question is at what level of professionalism it would be feasible. The nuclear option for Australian rugby would be to follow soccer's example of essentially decoupling the national team and the national competition. i.e. remove any restrictions on Wallabies...

If successful sports leagues in Australia (and for that matter, the rest of the world) are anything to go by start with an easy to understand and fair competition structure, all matches in our time zone and strong local rivalries then go from there.

Yeah I know we agree on most points. But the way I view the affordability point is that it's just a fact of history. Because the ARU did survive with 5 teams in the previous deal. The Lions tour is a fixed event so the windfalls from it are predictable. In a way we have to think of the ARU as...

In the professional era the ARU have always relied on on infrequent large windfalls (the Lions tours being the main stay). This new deal put them on a sound financial footing to support 5 teams, it's their (and SANZAAR's) own mismanagement that has changed this. And abandoning an entire region...

Yet they could afford it for 5 years under a significantly lower broadcast deal?

4700 people pledged to buy $8 million or so in shares. That would include many people pledging to buy multiple shares (in the prospectus it says that shareholders of 20 or more A Class Shares are entitled to two free season tickets for five years, so there may even be some people who've pledged...

It is so frustrating to continually hear or read this argument. It is irrelevant whether Australia has the depth for 5 teams or not, because rugby has an international player pool. If 10-20% of our players aren't good enough for Super Rugby, then there's a pretty obvious way of removing those...

Perhaps the OwnTheForce initiative is one worth pursuing by some, if not all, of the other teams? Especially if there's some other Twiggy Forrest's out there. Seems to me a good way of providing a big injection of funds into the grassroots and at the same time shoring up the financial strength...

It'd only lessen opportunities for Aussies who aren't good enough to be high level Super Rugby players. Guys who are currently being signed because teams can't sign better talent from NZ or elsewhere. You're saying the negative of this could be that NZ teams will keep flogging Australian...

Happens with Australian players too. It's just a reality that players will move around in a professional sport. But you always get players who remain loyal to one club for a long time as well, whether they be locals or not. For instance someone could move here to play in their early or mid 20's...

Pacific Islanders are the most obvious and beyond a certain level I think you're right. But I'm referring more to guys who would be worth $70-100k, the types who maybe aren't going to be offered Top 14 contracts but if they were Australian or English they'd have professional opportunities. Look...

That'd be great, but Australian players are expensive compared to players from the pacific islands or South Africa or developing tier 2 nations (top players in the Americas, Eastern Europe, Africa etc who struggle for professional opportunities) - for many earning say $80-100k Australian dollars...

These are separate arguments, I was responding solely to the argument that we don't have enough players for 5 quality teams. But I'm not sure being competitive will necessarily save super rugby in this country. It hasn't really helped the Brumbies for example, their crowds have been poor for...

This is actually the worst argument IMO for cutting a team. Rugby has the advantage of a global player pool, so if there's not enough quality players in Australia for 5 Super Rugby teams the best solution (i.e. the one that doesn't basically kill the game in an entire state) would be to allow...

Yeah I agree, I think it's a terrible decision and I still hope the Force's legal claim to remain holds and the ARU is forced to keep 5. But the fact the unions and franchises that aren't at risk are in favour of cutting a team isn't surprising. My view is that Super Rugby is unlikely to...

Of course individual franchises and unions (that aren't on the chopping block) will prefer to have 4 teams when it means more money and resources for them. All that tells you is that it's in their best interest. Whether that's worth all but killing the sport in another state is not their concern.

Why would anyone want to contract with rugby in Australia after they demonstrate that agreements with the ARU are meaningless? Imagine the ARU/SANZAAR can cut the Rebels without having to buy them out. The chances of attracting future private investment in Super Rugby now plummets. If they...

So if you're right about this is there any punishment for entering into an agreement they had no right to enter into? Even if there isn't any legal punishment the damage to their reputation would be huge. You'd have to be crazy to sign an agreement with the ARU after that.